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

[webkilla]

Fucking this exactly.

All this woman is really suggesting is that some videogames could evolve their gender portraits a little because they're perpetuating redundant stereotypes. I've never understood why that idea gets people in such a twist, like she's Jack Thompson or something.

If it weren't for the last five minutes of the video, I'd just think she was wrong. The last five minutes, however, are pretty 'twist-worthy'. I am very much in a twist about that.

I'm not sure if that sociopathic armchair-anthropologist speculation was something she genuinely believes, or if she's just trying to get people frothing at the mouth to keep discussing her otherwise rather hollow point, but I find it interesting that;

A) There is a 'Trigger Warning' for female viewers who have been assaulted.

B) There is no 'Trigger Warning' for male viewers who have recently lost a loved one, female or otherwise.

C) There is no 'Trigger Warning' for male viewers who have ever lost a loved one, who might be upset by the ridiculous, unfounded assertion that video games are slowly brainwashing them into viewing the deceased as 'lost property'.

Because that's the idea, right? That tropes have become cultural memes that slowly, insidiously creep into our minds, the more prevalent the meme, and more invasive the brainwashing.

Except that's not how memes work and if Dawkins was dead he'd be rolling in his grave.

Agreed - her last five minutes should have been her first videos first five minutes. And her choice of trigger warnings, ya, but it just goes to how one-sided her analysis of the situations are.

I've had a grandmother slowly and painfully wither way from cancer - so I actually sympathize a lot in game situations where a hero has to end the life of a friend or loved one to put them out of their misery. The way Anita describes those situations is without empathy or situational awareness of the contexts given in the games, but then again she outright dismisses those contexts and 'excuses' given in the games, simply saying that "killing your fictional girlfriend is bad and games are bad for making you do so"

 

[generals3]

Tetris doesn't have men and women in it. Wii Fit doesn't have a story. Guitar Hero lacks a narrative. Yes there are none violent games, but as they often lack any real characters or narrative to begin with, they aren't relevant to a discussion on stereotyping in games. The discussion would have to be restricted to those games that do, and the vast majority of games that have characters and story happen to be violent. As the biggest sellers, the most popular games and the closest things we have to videogame stories, these are inevitably going to be at the head of any discussion about video games.

Sure they are relevant. Because they show that tropes aren't always used and that you can easily avoid them. And sure, i concur these games will be in people's head in such discussions. But this is exactly the bias which distorts reality.

The point I'm making is that this "general expectation" shouldn't factor into the a story to the extent it does - as long as a women is capable of being physically strong, there is no reason for a writer to disclude her as a protagonist or character in an action based game. We should be seeing plenty more of these women coming up in games - but if anything, the opposite is true. Women make up only a tiny fraction of video game characters, more than outnumbered by male characters in practically every major title. As for females as protagonists, they make up a tiny minority.

Actually general expectation is key. Mainly in games with so little story-telling that the writers rely on the gamer to fill in the blanks. A game with a lot of story can avoid relying on general expectations because it has the time provide enough context to give sense to the fact it diverges from general expectation. That's why tropes are mainly overused in games with simplistic stories.

Spoiler

Take the death of General Carvill in RA2, he was a man, yet i felt pretty damn pissed against the soviets for killing him. Why? Because prior to his assassination he appeared in many cutscenes, giving the player time to be emotionally connect with the character. They didn't need to rely on the trope and get a female killed off because there was sufficient time to create a connection. The more simplistic a story the more likely the use of a trope or general expectations

So the problem lies in the fact that the "segment" (which is wide enough to accommodate most major titles released in this day and age) is dominated by men, or rather, that game designers expect it to be and make no effort to accommodate anyone who isn't a man. That's a self-fulfilling prophesy. If all the biggest, most popular games are made only to appeal to men, at the expense of discouraging female interest, then the result is obviously going to be a more homogenised audience and a glut of games with negative female stereotypes. It is a major problem within the industry, and if it is anything like the film industry, game companies are starting to wake up to their mistake. It's only just occurring to them, after decades of reserving big budget projects to prioritise male audiences, that women actually quite like bigger budget stories made with them in mind. We've started seeing the likes of The Hunger Games, those derivative fairy story movies, Studio Goddamn Ghibli; big fantasy or action movies that specifically are made with women in mind as consumers.

It isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy. Many companies try to accommodate new segments due to competition in the existing ones. However you can't accommodate a segment which simply doesn't or won't exist (or simply be too small to make big money). The way it works is: people want something, company notices that and sees an opportunity to make money and thus provides. However no one has yet to provide any tangible evidence there is a potential female target base close to the male one. I'm still waiting for the market researches from the people who make that claim. Have yet to see any.

 

[generals3]

It's not a one-way street, on either direction. It's not that media shapes society or society shapes media. They shape each other. Society creates media based on what it is, what it likes and what it wants to be, and then consumes that very creation. It's a two-way street, and all media creators have a certain degree of responsibility for what they create (but we must also keep in mind that media creators are too the products of their cultures). It's not simple. It's complicated, and there are entire branches of sociology and anthropology dealing with these issues. The relationship between a society and the art/media it produces is very rich and complex.

However the two way street has a lot more traffic going the way of society influencing the media. And you can't reasonably expect companies to make losses and go bankrupt in an attempt to reshape society. Maybe if we lived in a communist society that would work. But in our world that would just lead to bankruptcies.

That said, I completely disagree with your assertion that women are to blame. You cannot blame a consumer for not purchasing a product that is not only not aimed at her in the slightest, but aggressively uses her gender as a tool for another gender's sexual or emotional gratification. While it's true that women should be encouraged to get into the industry and to become a more visible demographic, the industry needs to accept that it's part of the problem as well.

Sure i can blame women. There are plenty of triple A games who don't use said tropes. If women were interested in triple A games they would buy those games and that would send a strong signal. However it's obvious they are not interested in the typical triple A game genre discussed here. So the state of the industry is very much shaped by that. And i've yet to see any tangible evidence that the industry is part of the problem. Still waiting on market researches proving that.

And yes, problems do need to be fixed, and the fix to this particular problem is education. That's what Anita is doing (and what I try my best to do as well), to educate others on why she thinks this or that is a problem, and how it can be solved. Education is not an obligation, it's a choice. If you don't agree with her or don't want to see the video, that's perfectly fine, but it's aimed at people who might be receptive or sympathetic to the idea.

However her way of education can be compared to that of a preacher "educating" people about creationism. She makes a lot of unfounded assumptions. Sure she is right about the use of tropes, but so what? Tropes are used... ok... whatever? And than whenever she's trying to explain why that overuse is bad it goes in the world of wild speculations. That's not education.

As for why some people want tropes to be gender-equal, well, because it maximises diversity and avoids any unfortunate implications. If the portrayal of people being rescued and people doing the rescuing is gender equal, there are no implications that one gender is the protector and one gender is to be protected. It allows people to play the one they like (so if you like the traditional idea, it's still an option) while allowing everyone else to have fun as well. They point is not "stop using this trope", but "it would be nice if it was applied equally", so that everyone is free to be portrayed in every role. Everyone gets a turn being rescued and doing the rescuing, everyone gets to experience the full spectrum of human emotion and, well, experience, regardless of their gender.

You assume diversity is a universally desired trait. You may consider it better, but that doesn't apply to everyone. As such it is merely an opinion.

And marketing despises the idea of "everyone". Because that's the best way not to make money. Maybe this discussion should actually be about capitalism?

 

[Mid Boss]

Oh boy. She disabled comments on this one too. Now, yet again, the douche bags will be spreading to every video on youtube that has anything to do with feminism to rage about how not being able to throw rape and death threats at her infringes on their freedom speech.... or, in this case, freedom to terrorize people into silence.

 

[Wyvern65]

I don't understand how she can, as someone with a degree in media studies who is a self-proclaimed pop culture critic, continue to present her arguments while blithely ignoring the entire historical context of the genre of entertainment she's professing to criticize.

It's as if I were to sit down and create a series on "depictions of women in early science fiction stories" without understanding that the sci-fi magazine grew out of the boys adventure pulps and how that historical circumstance limited what was and was not portrayed about women in that genre for the next 30 odd years.

Video games are largely by, for and about male concerns today in large part because for the entire history of the medium it has been a mostly male market. It was a gendered form of entertainment. As gendered as something like romance novels or soap operas. I agree completely that this needs to change, but to examine current games without that context is bizarre.

Also she seems to be unaware that every character male OR female who is not the protagonist in a video game is /explicitly/ created as an object to serve the protagonist in some way. To flatter their ego, to provide some quest or motivation, to get the gamer to move from point A to point B. Unlike novels or movies, video games simply don't have the resources or ability to provide rich deep characterization to every minor character along the way because these things cost money. You have to write/animate/voice/localize them. It's not just the cost of a few extra pages of typeface. To complain that we don't focus on the woman's experience of the situation they're cast in is as silly as saying we don't get deep examinations of the motivations of someone who gives the player a random fetch quest. That's not what the character in question is there for.

Lastly she really needs to read some Joseph Campbell. These tropes are as old as humanity and while they may be lazy, they resonate with us and by and large they work.

 

[The-Traveling-Bard]

To be honest I am tired of always talking about females, females, and motherfucking females.

Female this.
Female that.
Female this, and that.

This is probably the most number reason why I hate most feminist.

What about all the idealized men get?

What about all those romantic novels that idealize the perfect man?

I really wish feminist would get it through their fucking heads that both genders both get objectified and sexualized/idealized. And what they really hate is biology.

I wouldn't hate Anita so much if she wasn't such a smug asshole and acts like she's some superior being. She almost reminds of Ceresi Lannister from Game Of Thrones. In her own little world where she can't be criticized, or questioned because the punishment of doing so is death so therefor she thinks she's so clever. But when it comes to her father and little brother. She's a complete fool.

I hate how she acts towards stereotypes. THEY EXIST BECAUSE THEY'RE FUCKING TRUE. I really wish people would get over stereotypes. They exist because they are true.

Example: My friend who is black wrote a essay about grape soda and fried chicken. ... really?


And what's the problem with stereotypes? it's not like they're always a negative thing. (Sometimes they are.. I know)

Why doesn't she talk about how the male hero is always some handsome muscular brave adventurer? Mmm?
There's plenty of "male tropes" out there as well. If you really wanted a equal rights for all genders. Why don't you fucking talk about that as well?

I am also tired of her acting like entertainment teaches kids/grown fucking adults the values of life. YES some form of media can influence people but let's be honest. They're the minority. I don't know any teenager is stupid enough to learn how to treat girls from video games.

 

[kingthrall]

1. Most video games are violent, it makes them enjoyable, explosions, fire and lots of energy involved. Same as most blockbuster films with similar content are most successful.

2. What about violence against men. The whole point of dishonored is not to kill people in the first place for the "good ending". She completely does not mention this in her arguments.

3. I would say 80% of the games she thinks are violent against women are rpg's. Most of which are Eastern by the looks of it. (I don't play that garbage) so you can be the judge. She misses out on all the F.P.S, strategy games that have none of these things. Also historically women are not in power in games set in medieval times ect.

4. Male characters do die at the ending of games its not only isolated to women.

5. Ironically and I am just putting this one out there. Female characters in Rpg's to make it more realistically would ask about 50 more questions and spend way too much time shopping and doing non-male characterized things. Yes its a stereotype, yes its generalist.

Im not saying female characters are bad, I am just saying as a guy I cant relate to females even doing the same things as guys to get the end result. It would have to be a complete overhaul which is impossible in a male designed/coded ect dominated business.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

And in a videogame we should have the option of altering history so she avoids that fate to... Mostly because it's not that fun to have the big reward for finishing a game be the main character get turned into a bbq.

on the other hand, you could go with the historically correct thing, then take control of the french knight and captains you've rescued, inspired and trusted throughout the game, and have them win the war in her remembrance, a truly bittersweet ending.
basicly like the french campaign in Age of Empires 2.

or make the alternate history ending a secret ending if you were awesome enough to unlock it.

 

[FreakofNatur]

snip

Ah, gotcha - you've simply misunderstood the point of her video. She's not "blaming" video games for sexist attitudes in society, she's just pointing out where and how female-centric tropes exist within video games. It's an examination of female characters in video games, the all-too-common tropes video game writers tend to employ and how the overuse of those tropes affects society at large. You've interpreted her as blaming video games for society's ills, rather than reinforcing them.

That's her intent. Do watch her video closely, she's blaming already.

You've disregarded her change in tone and position, which happened about halfway through the video and is reinforced at the end of the video. I'll watch the video again to confirm, but that's the idea she perpetuated. Sure awareness is good, but she abused her position as an influential person.

 

[kingthrall]

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...

Let's see a game then where the main character's plot motivation comes from the fact that he was the brother of guard 34b... Actually games are diverse enough that this in one form or another has happened. But is it a well known or popular game?

This leads to the main point, a point that you seem to miss.

It's not that violence happens to a woman in one game, or that it happens to women in games where violence also happens to males. It's that this trope happens over and over. That this specific plot device is used again and again.

Ponder this, Anita would not have much to talk about and her argument would have less of a leg to stand on if these "victimized women" got up, dusted themselves off and then proceeded to ass-kick their way through a literal army of enemies after being shot, stabbed, possessed, and/or mutated like a MALE main character WOULD. No, instead they die, or even better they ASK to be killed, so that they can be some clichéd source of emotional urgency and dramatic tension.

At this point I would rather NOT be given ANY reason as to why I need to fight my way through an army of men, gods, and monsters rather than be asked to save yet another girlfriend, wife, or daughter.

You do see the difference right? It's not that violence is there or not. But how it is portrayed, how that violence fits into the story and drives it.

Male victim of violence - fights back and defeats the enemy

Female victim of violence - has to be saved or avenged

At no point does she get to take matters into her own hands, she doesn't get to fight back, she doesn't get to defeat her enemy. A MALE has to save her or avenge her.

If I was walking down the street hypothetically and punched the crap out of woman. Would she or another woman try and stop me or would the woman call and scream for a guy to help? Its not that its morally right, its realistically correct. I am also not justifying my argument. Put it plainly many of these games are utter garbage and I dont play them.

 

[The Lyre]

Let's see a game then where the main character's plot motivation comes from the fact that he was the brother of guard 34b...

Actually, you're missing his point.

You outright murder people by the hundreds to get the damsel, but not one of those deaths is considered worth 'motivating' anything, let alone its own plot centred around the death of that one man.

The damsel might be powerless, she might get captured, but ultimately it all revolves around her, for good or bad. Scores upon scores of sometimes rather innocent or at least rather neutral individuals are slaughtered just get her back, and it's seen as entirely worth it to do so.

Guard 34b has even less power, less influence, less of an existence than the damsel, and he'll very often meet an even worse fate than the damsel, pulled or shot to pieces, electrocuted or burnt to death.

And maybe, just maybe, if he's lucky, his death will even be glorified in slow motion as his head slowly leaves his body with a 'whoosh' sound in it's own little gory cutscene where the camera swoops around his severed neck, before it falls back behind the eyes or shoulder of the protagonist, where it belongs.

But why does no one care about the plight of Guard 34b?! Guards are people too, you know! They have just as much a right to live as the hero or the damsel! Don't you care, sir? Don't you care so hard it makes your heart hurt?!

Oh, wait, sorry - this is a video game, it's a fictional story, he's an NPC, and he isn't actually dying any more than the damsel is. Guard 34b is no more representative of all real men than the damsel is of all real women.

Really this whole thing seems a bit silly now, doesn't it?

 

[Jason Rayes]

Like a Dinosaur Planet that actually had a chick with a staff that kicked arse. I want to play that game.

Yeah, quoting myself but I played something like that, only Jade had a camera AND a staff. Beyond Good and Evil 2, please exist.

 

[FreakofNatur]

This leads to the main point, a point that you seem to miss.

It's not that violence happens to a woman in one game, or that it happens to women in games where violence also happens to males. It's that this trope happens over and over. That this specific plot device is used again and again.

Ponder this, Anita would not have much to talk about and her argument would have less of a leg to stand on if these "victimized women" got up, dusted themselves off and then proceeded to ass-kick their way through a literal army of enemies after being shot, stabbed, possessed, and/or mutated like a MALE main character WOULD. No, instead they die, or even better they ASK to be killed, so that they can be some clichéd source of emotional urgency and dramatic tension.

At this point I would rather NOT be given ANY reason as to why I need to fight my way through an army of men, gods, and monsters rather than be asked to save yet another girlfriend, wife, or daughter.

You do see the difference right? It's not that violence is there or not. But how it is portrayed, how that violence fits into the story and drives it.

Male victim of violence - fights back and defeats the enemy

Female victim of violence - has to be saved or avenged

At no point does she get to take matters into her own hands, she doesn't get to fight back, she doesn't get to defeat her enemy. A MALE has to save her or avenge her.

The female falls victim to appeal to the gamer's sense of urgency/evoke emotional response to play the game. Sure, most of the time the experience is contrived, but rather than being a serious abuse of female stereotypes, isn't it just a convenient plot device that the writers chose to pursue? Is it really a positive reinforcement of a negative stereotype by way of usage? I think not. You said it yourself, it's a cliche.

I don't see it as a problem. Is there reinforcement or even any sign that people are perpetuating such beliefs after playing such games? Keep in mind the context is a fantastical one. She claims and thus blames video games for pursuing misogynist values, I don't think video games have that much cause for blame. Reinforcement? More like ironic awareness.

Most of her examples are from games whom where developed in other countries like in Japan. Isn't she taking the context out of the country? Again, ironic awareness - The Japanese are all too aware of such issues. Anita seems to be sensationalizing her evidence and that makes me irk. Taking a biased viewpoint(From the U.S.) is not healthy at all when examining evidence.

 

[TrevHead]

Let's see a game then where the main character's plot motivation comes from the fact that he was the brother of guard 34b...

Actually, you're missing his point.

You outright murder people by the hundreds to get the damsel, but not one of those deaths is considered worth 'motivating' anything, let alone its own plot centred around the death of that one man.

The damsel might be powerless, she might get captured, but ultimately it all revolves around her, for good or bad. Scores upon scores of sometimes rather innocent or at least rather neutral individuals are slaughtered just get her back, and it's seen as entirely worth it to do so.

Guard 34b has even less power, less influence, less of an existence than the damsel, and he'll very often meet an even worse fate than the damsel, pulled or shot to pieces, electrocuted or burnt to death.

And maybe, just maybe, if he's lucky, his death will even be glorified in slow motion as his head slowly leaves his body with a 'whoosh' sound in it's own little gory cutscene where the camera swoops around his severed neck, before it falls back behind the eyes or shoulder of the protagonist, where it belongs.

But why does no one care about the plight of Guard 34b?! Guards are people too, you know! They have just as much a right to live as the hero or the damsel! Don't you care, sir? Don't you care so hard it makes your heart hurt?!

Oh, wait, sorry - this is a video game, it's a fictional story, he's an NPC, and he isn't actually dying any more than the damsel is. Guard 34b is no more representative of real men than the damsel is of real women.

Really this whole thing seems a bit silly now, doesn't it?

Is that why so many security guards IRL are lazy bums and the first to put up their hands in a robbery? Cos you know video games warp our minds don't they

 

[TJC]

I guess I'll make myself unpopular by saying that I actually enjoyed this video. It was far from perfect and I still think she'd do a LOT better as only voice over or having a 90/10 ratio of game footage and her face but at least it seems better than in the first video.

It's far from faultless but I find it surprisingly hard to disagree with her entirely. These tropes are actually interesting to discuss which makes it all the more painful that comments are still disabled, especially since the attention span of the biggest trolls already caused them to move on. Then again... fruitful discussion on youtube comments? HA!

 

[kingthrall]

Let's see a game then where the main character's plot motivation comes from the fact that he was the brother of guard 34b...

Actually, you're missing his point.

Snip

Its like in a film, they are the extra's. They get paid to die for their drug money in the game cause they are too lazy to get a decent job as a protagonist.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Whats wrong with saving the woman? Men love woman and dont want them harmed. If it was a car, fuck it, not worth risking my life for. I think woman look way to much into this stuff. Its a game, men dont see woman as being victims just because a game has you rescue a woman. Hell, how many games have you rescue male characters? LOADS.

 

[Mid Boss]

Here's my major beef with her videos so far. She gives plenty of evidence that the trope exists, but then when she actually starts to even allude to a point, she jumps to her next part about the trope or a related trope. When it finally ends, I have no idea what her major point was, besides maybe that the industry lacks creativity. We got evidence last time, and had she done her job well, that evidence should have sufficed. It didn't because most of it was talking about just a few select series, so we got more evidence this time instead of a legitimate point. We could watch this video as a part 1, forget the last one, and most likely get the idea of the part in the series in which we actually get a total point to it all(which I'm doubting will be any time soon). Seriously Anita, I can't agree or disagree with your damn point until you get to the damn point.

Actually I thought the point was pretty clear. That, by themselves as isolated incidents, they are lazy writing driving male power fantasies. But when taken together we see a rich tapestry of women are helpless, you need to protect them, that's your job, even if it entails brutalizing or even killing them because it's for their own good. Because no male power fantasy is complete without that feeling of protectorship or domination over a helpless, stupid, over emotional woman.

And that's... kinda a problem.

 

[EyeReaper]

So... according to her, women should never die in a video game, because that's disempowering and sexist.

 

[Mid Boss]

So... according to her, women should never die in a video game, because that's disempowering and sexist.

And here's a person that didn't watch the whole video. Because she said and explains, repeatedly, at the end that that's not what she trying to say.

Well done! How far in did you actually get?