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

[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.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

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.

I reckon they wrote the script and then filmed it in fairly short order. So it is the editing that's taking time probably, the cutting and all those fancy interfolded panels next to Sarkeesian when she speaks etc.. This is how my friends in the film production industry does it anyway and I'd be surprised if Sarkessian and her crew didn't do it in a similar way. A filming always goes better if you have all episodes shot back to back, as it gives a better focus on the complete narrative to everyone involved.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

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...

She never said that. Her argument is that these stories are badly written and contingent on outdated gender roles.

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, if my target audience was racists and KKK members it would be totally fine to throw in some casual racism and blackface? Your argument is fallacious in that it assumes that anything tailored to the target audience has to be good. Which simply isn't true. Or are you suggesting that men can't enjoy cerebral stories or stories in which women are afforded equal agency?

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.

So cigarette commercials are totally fine, right? Because as long as you sell cigarettes, you've done your job. This argument is also fallacious because it assumes that anything that brings a profit is a good thing. Sarkeesian is not making her argument from a profit-perspective, she's making her argument from a broader social perspective where the continued use of the DiD trope, especially in media mainly aimed at men, perpetuates outdated gender roles of male agency and female helplessness.

You can not "defeat" or "nullify" her argument by arguing profit or target audience, because her argument uses a social perspective. At best the profit and target audience arguments are excuses, useful to explain how this happens, but they are not a rebuttal to the argument that a cohesive media image of women as helpless victims might be damaging to gender equality. Nor that it is some really shitty storytelling.

 

[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?

Of course i didn't finish watching the video. i wasted ten minutes, I'm not gonna waste a half an hour on this drivel

10 minutes!? Man, I thought for sure you were someone that would only watch 4 or 5 minutes, jump to a conclusion, then rush to... inflict... your opinion onto others. But, instead, you waited TEN minutes! I have grossly underestimated you and I, deeply, apologize for that.

 

[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...

She never said that. Her argument is that these stories are badly written and contingent on outdated gender roles.

I never said she did. But that is main plot of the games she used as reference.

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, if my target audience was racists and KKK members it would be totally fine to throw in some casual racism and blackface? Your argument is fallacious in that it assumes that anything tailored to the target audience has to be good. Which simply isn't true. Or are you suggesting that men can't enjoy cerebral stories or stories in which women are afforded equal agency?

You missed my point. And of course your immediate examples are negative. The question is not whether it is good or bad. "This type of video game sold a million billion something dollars so let's do it, again." THAT is the thinking of the ones that sell video games. Morality is not the issue but money. And if we are going to discuss morality, what is your religion?

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.

So cigarette commercials are totally fine, right? Because as long as you sell cigarettes, you've done your job. This argument is also fallacious because it assumes that anything that brings a profit is a good thing. Sarkeesian is not making her argument from a profit-perspective, she's making her argument from a broader social perspective where the continued use of the DiD trope, especially in media mainly aimed at men, perpetuates outdated gender roles of male agency and female helplessness.

You can not "defeat" or "nullify" her argument by arguing profit or target audience, because her argument uses a social perspective. At best the profit and target audience arguments are excuses, useful to explain how this happens, but they are not a rebuttal to the argument that a cohesive media image of women as helpless victims might be damaging to gender equality. Nor that it is some really shitty storytelling.

You didn't even quote me properly. And again, another negative example. This is like video games are to be blamed for violence (school shootings and such). But IT IS about profit. And IT IS because of shitty storytelling. Video game makers cannot come up with a new idea that is why there is a CoD/BF/AC every year.

So, who are talking for/to? You mean this video is not targeted to anyone? Why upload it in YouTube? Speak to a wall then. If you have no target audience why upload something for the whole world to see?

Talk to me about gender equality when my boss stops being a woman.

 

[generals3]

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, if my target audience was racists and KKK members it would be totally fine to throw in some casual racism and blackface? Your argument is fallacious in that it assumes that anything tailored to the target audience has to be good. Which simply isn't true. Or are you suggesting that men can't enjoy cerebral stories or stories in which women are afforded equal agency?

Did you just compare "saving the girl" with casual racism? Do mind that the target demographic also has a racial impact on the video game industry now, take Red Alert (West always the good guys), CoD, C&C Generals, Medal of Honor, World In Conflict, etc. The US and Europe (except Nazis, but than again, they're Nazis...) are rarely framed in the bad guy role.

EDIT: for those interested, this is the only study I found which would be actually relevant to determine the potential female costumer base of the games being discussed here:
http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol11/issue4/hartmann.html

Highlights:
- Women don't like violence in games
- Women don't like Competitiveness in games
- Women really like social interactions in games
- Women don't like gender stereotyping (tested here as sexualization of women)

=> Since women already don't like violence and really like social interactions one could ask himself: why would a developer making a game in which social interactions are mainly expressed through violence not go the whole way in the man-targeting. The genre is already de-facto going to severely favor a male audience, why not add some cleavage or feature male protagonists? If there is one thing that marketing teaches you: Target Audience >>> Rest.

PS: the methodology of the studies aren't 100% awesome however it seems to be the best we got...

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I never said she did. But that is main plot of the games she used as reference.

You only used a rhetorical question to imply so.

You missed my point. And of course your immediate examples are negative. The question is not whether it is good or bad. "This type of video game sold a million billion something dollars so let's do it, again." THAT is the thinking of the ones that sell video games. Morality is not the issue but money. And if we are going to discuss morality, what is your religion?

Religion is beside the point. Sarkeesian is obviously not talking to game makers, but rather trying to highlight the kind of lazy sexism that exists in the gaming industry. If you will, by highlighting the issue she might be influencing people to pass up on game containing this kind of lazy sexism in their stories, which in turn hurts profit.

Either way, Sarkeesians argument was one of social values and morality, it is disingenuous to suggest that things can't change because currently these games are making a profit.

You didn't even quote me properly. And again, another negative example. This is like video games are to be blamed for violence (school shootings and such). But IT IS about profit. And IT IS because of shitty storytelling. Video game makers cannot come up with a new idea that is why there is a CoD/BF/AC every year.

No, I snipped out the irrelevant fluff. Your analogy also fails, because neither I nor Sarkeesian has said video games will make anyone think women are all helpless victims. What we have said is that they, when they contain this kind of material, help perpetuate current, outdated gender stereotypes. That is to say that people who believe women are helpless victims will continue to think so. In conjunction with the rest of media it will also make all of us more likely to subconsciously assume women are less capable and more likely to be victimized than men. You know, just like Marlboro Man managed to make an entire generation think it was really cool to go smoking.

So, who are talking for/to? You mean this video is not targeted to anyone? Why upload it in YouTube? Speak to a wall then. If you have no target audience why upload something for the whole world to see?

Why are you asking me that? If this is your problem take it to Sarkeesian. The general idea when doing social critique is that you are talking to anyone who's willing to listen, which is what Sarkeesian seems to be doing. Obviously gamers will be a pretty big target group, since we are those that are the most affected.

Talk to me about gender equality when my boss stops being a woman.

Sweet! Anecdotal fallacy! [https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal] Your boss happens to be a minority, just like mine, and the gender of our bosses is not relevant to this particular discussion. Either way they are still a statistical minority compared to all the male bosses out there.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Did you just compare "saving the girl" with casual racism? Do mind that the target demographic also has a racial impact on the video game industry now, take Red Alert (West always the good guys), CoD, C&C Generals, Medal of Honor, World In Conflict, etc. The US and Europe (except Nazis, but than again, they're Nazis...) are rarely framed in the bad guy role.

I compared casual sexism to casual racism, surprised?

=> Since women already don't like violence and really like social interactions one could ask himself: why would a developer making a game in which social interactions are mainly expressed through violence not go the whole way in the man-targeting. The genre is already de-facto going to severely favor a male audience, why not add some cleavage or feature male protagonists? If there is one thing that marketing teaches you: Target Audience >>> Rest.

And once more with feeling: "Target audience wants" and "Profit is king" are not valid counter-arguments to a mainly ethical reasoning. If my target audience of KKK members wants a "black people lynching simulator" that does not make my final product any less morally repugnant. "Going all in" on the casual sexism does not make it any better just because a part (how large?) of the male gaming community thinks it is great.

It is also equally valid to argue that if your basic premise isn't sexist you can derive bigger profit from not throwing in some sexualized female characters and a section of gratuitous female nudity. Because not doing so opens up the game for the, not insignificant, part of the gaming community that are actual women or who otherwise objects to casual sexism.

This whole business of defending morally awkward decisions as "good business" does not alleviate you of the fact that you are still fine with casual sexism.