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

[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 Her argument is that these stories are badly written and contingent on outdated gender roles.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social perspective where the continued use of the DiD trope, especially in media mainly aimed at men, perpetuates outdated gender roles of male agency and female helplessness.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.

 

[generals3]

I compared casual sexism to casual racism, surprised?

I guess if I see a woman in distress i better shouldn't be a sexist dick and help her. There is nothing sexist about the scenario of a woman being taken hostage or attacked or whatever and being rescued by a man. It's just that, a scenario. And that regardless of how much it is being used. (because that would assume there is some kind of industry wide agenda)

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.

A black people lynching simulator would be comparable to a rape game. Which has already been determined to be morally wrong by the gaming community. You seem to be comparing apples with firetrucks. What would be more comparable is making a game in which the white guys are the good guys and the black guys the bad guys. And while white vs black isn't that prevalent we already have a multitude of white guy vs muslims (eg). So more comparable examples exist. And guess what, people who yell "racism" at those examples (i've seen people do that towards C&C Generals) usually get totally ignored and make people roll their eyes.

 

[generals3]

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)

I just showed this to a friend of mine & she wanted me to pass on a message: "Stop talking shit, or i will [act of violence that is physically impossible & in violation of the escapist TOS]"

*Looks across as Shannon*

Did i get that right?

*Looks back at the monitor*

She goes on to say "don't call me 'woman' i'm a gamer you [insult to your person, in which she insults your lineage & postulates that you may be your own father]"

Ah yes, thats my delicate little snow flake...

That made me lol, the kind of comical relief needed in this topic ^^

However don't forget to tell her it's the study which highlighted that, i'm merely the messenger... and my own father. Time to go in front of a mirror and say "Luke, I'm your father".

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I guess if I see a woman in distress i better shouldn't be a sexist dick and help her. There is nothing sexist about the scenario of a woman being taken hostage or attacked or whatever and being rescued by a man. It's just that, a scenario. And that regardless of how much it is being used. (because that would assume there is some kind of industry wide agenda)

And a strawman. I am not surprised however and I feel it is only prudent that we end this discussion right here, since you've already labeled me as a RadFem in an earlier thread and I've got no desire to get stuck in an endless discussion.

Except there is no ethical reason... At all.

There is literally no reason in which a female character cannot be killed in a computer game. After all you seem to have no problem mowing down hundreds of thosuands of men over the life time of a single game. Heck thats unethical, so lets ban any game in which men are killed.

The main difference between unnamed mooks in your average game and the damsel in distress/damsel in a refrigerator is that one of those has the agency to fight back and at least attempt to stop the aggressor that wishes them bodily harm. In fact, overcoming that challenge is the very basis of the game. The other is meek, helpless and portrayed equally much as a reward for a game well-played as an actual character in the story. I am sure I don't need to tell you which is which.

Can you see how stupid your "un-ethical" stance is.

All I can see is how fallacious your counter-argument was, failing to make the distinction between agency and objectification. So, no.

"Target audience wants" and "Profit is king" are in fact counter arguments to the feminist complaint of "how dare this thing not pander to my every desire, it needs to stop existing!"

Are you debating the straw-feminists in your head again? Because I am fairly certain that is not Sarkeesians point and I am completely certain it is not my point. It is all there in her video and in my previous responses go look them up. I am not wasting my time trying to tell you to stop jousting windmills.

 

[Dastardly]

The fact is that its actually okay for bad things to happen to female characters in video games. You can slaughter them, kick them around & generally enjoy being monsterous to them... Same way we have & still do to male characters in the trillions every year.

And yet the same kind of bad things aren't happening to male characters as often. We're not talking about how they are brutalized or killed. We're talking about why. More male character story arcs are kicked off (or ramped up) by the brutal death of a female character than the other way around. WAY more. This is a character whose death is not their own, but is rather a tool to amplify another character, and it's almost exclusively women used to serve male characters. And that's at least worth looking into.

Video game =/= History.

If you were as clever as you seem to think with comments like this, we wouldn't need to have this discussion. I simply pointed out that Emperors are, historically speaking, the "default." So, when someone is writing a story, and they make it an Empress, it's extremely likely that they have a reason to do so.

The same is true if a story features a female president -- we assume there is a pretty strong reason for this to be the case, because it differs with reality. If a character can fly (which normal people can't), we usually want to be given a compelling reason for why this character can fly. When things are very different from the usual, a story has to at least give a nod to the reason. In this case, the Empress is an empress because her femininity serves as a catalyst for Corvo's righteous revenge.

And your crap about the 47%, and talking down to casual gamer, that's just a narrow-minded No True Scotsman argument.

 

[Dastardly]

And this is where any chance for an actual conversation is lost. I may have been dumbfounded by your statement but I didn't make you out to be some sort of villain or have some philosophical view of the world.

I mean seriously thanks for the bloody insult there because clearly you know me more than I know myself and that everyone around me shouldn't have any conversation with me because you clearly understand my views of the world. Give me a fucking break.

EDIT: Also nice job taking me out of context when you want me to list the things I do during my leisure in relation to content that is being "produced and pushed". Really great job there.

Climb down off your cross and go read your post (the one to which I replied). Then try to talk about condescending and insulting. You also don't know what "taking out of context" means - you used your "I play lots of this stuff" to deflect from the idea that there isn't enough representation for another viewpoint. That's directly related to what I said -- take that list and compare to the stuff that's out there in the public eye. Not buried on a shelf in one store somewhere in Kansas, but the mainstream stuff.

You're trying to claim "separate but equal," when it's clearly not equal. Me pointing that out isn't taking you out of context. It's simply pointing out something you're doing that you don't like having pointed out.

 

[Wyvern65]

It's the ESA, not the ESRB. The studies are linked above

No they are not... What is linked above is a group of numbers. A group of numbers is not a study. A study requires that a methodolgy be included... Because as it stands i can do what they just did... Watch: According to our exhaustive study (in which i make up numbers) 99% of people think Wyvern65 has sex with chipmunks. 62% of people think the chipmunks liked it... It must be true, because i used percentages & that makes it a study.

See how that doesn't work.

Context of the conversation, it matters.

It might be nice if you took a deep breath before charging off to be condescending since you have no idea what my own thoughts about that number are but simply invented them out of whole cloth. [hint: they actually match your own, that it's largely meaningless.] You were so quick to act like I'm some idiot with no grasp of statistics 101 I really wish I didn't feel that way.

Someone asked for a source for a specific number being bandied about. I happened to know where to find it and posted that source. Nowhere did I make any comment on the validity of that number. There was even a hint to my own feelings when I said "rudimentary sourcing." Rudimentary does not imply a great deal of faith.

Unlike yourself I feel no particular need to spell out in giant neon letters the obvious. I have enough respect for the intellect of the poster I was actually responding to that I felt it sufficient to simply post the source and allow them to draw their own conclusions as to its validity.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm off to have sex with 62% of a chipmunk or something.

 

[Elijin]

I think some of her clips used were poorly chosen (for instance saw quite a few timesplitters scenes in her montage, with over the top damsel in distress situations, which were very openly written in parody of the trope...)

Thats kind of consistent for me. I didnt really disagree too much, but felt she could have picked better examples.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Men loving their wives and children and wanting to protect them has more to do with love, attachment and empathy towards your family than some bullshit societal pressure for christs sake.
Yes there's the overarching theme of patriarchy but the motivation stems primarily from empathy.

Perhaps, but it stems from only one specific type of empathy. We could empathize with a mother, too, but we rarely get one as a playable character. We could empathize with a father trying to save his son, but even that oddly doesn't show up much (it's probably assumed that a son should be capable of saving himself).

This particularly "empathetic trigger" is designed, from the ground up, with men in mind. The playable character is nearly always -- not "very often," not "most of the time, but nearly always -- male, and the object of his power fantasy almost exclusively female.

We're not talking about "empathy toward one's family." We're talking about "a FATHER'S desire to save the WOMEN in his keeping." If we were shown families from many different angles on a consistent basis, your original argument could hold water. Reality does not bear this out.

Yes there is the overarching theme of patriarchy in that this particular type of empathy is overrepresented, that absolutely does not mean that the motivation for the player stems from it.

Sarkeesian clearly stated that the motivation for the character or the player stems primarily from patriarchal roles, which is empathetically not true. The way that the characters and situations are represented are a direct result of lingering patriarchal roles, the motivation for either the characters or the player has basically nothing to do with it.

The player primarily wants to kill these people because they killed/kidnapped the loved ones of the protagonist with whom they identify. The character wants to kill these people because they killed his loved ones. The motivation in God of War isn't any different from what the motivation would be in a game where a mother is trying to save her children, it's the ways those situations and the characters in them are represented that differ, and is harmful.

The designers aren't trying to invoke some trigger reaction only present in men that's a direct result of misogynistic attitudes, that would be ridiculous. They're trying to motivate the players with empathy towards the protagonist. Yes it's a male protagonist and a female victim, but I agree with you and Sarkeesian that that needs to change.

 

[Wyvern65]

Someone asked for a source for those specific numbers. I provided the source for those specific numbers. Full stop.

Amazingly enough this does not make me responsible for the content of the source, the quality of the source, the opinions held by those who use the source to further an agenda, the responses of others those to those opinions, if the source meets the scientific criteria for a peer reviewed journal or the cost of a nightcap on the titanic.

Yeah, I called them studies. Neither of us have any idea if they meet the criteria for a valid study because no methodology is given. I wasn't aware my wording in forum posts was required to meet your exacting standards. Note taken.

Why you're continuing to address me specifically (and continuing to do so in a manner that cannot be taken in any other way than condescending) to explicate your problems with the numbers is frankly puzzling. Especially when I already said I agree with your issues with those numbers.

Like it or not that IS the source for the 47% number that keeps getting thrown around and that IS what was requested and I provided.

Maybe I /should/ put it in neon letters: EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING I AGREE WITH.

Perhaps you should switch to decaf?

 

[Soundwave]

So I watched the video, and it seemed pretty much that she was arguing "Even though the context in these various situations justify them, video games do not exist in a vacuum and therefore have a detrimental effect on society when they overly rely on sexist tropes".

I'm not sure if I agree with her assertion or not. It's like arguing that violent video games make the player more violent, which as far as I'm aware hasn't been proven one way or another.

Tangentially: I can say it has been my experience (which of course, isn't a valid argument in and of itself), that I was much less 'sensitive' to violence in my adolescent to teenage years, and have become substantially more 'sensitive' in my twenties. I tend to use the anecdote that I "stopped being able to enjoy dead baby jokes after my first son was born".

I can also say that I don't think of my wife as my property, and the frequent suggestions of that being the basis of her motivations seems really strange and alien to me.

 

[Eacaraxe_v1legacy]

So I watched the video, and it seemed pretty much that she was arguing "Even though the context in these various situations justify them, video games do not exist in a vacuum and therefore have a detrimental effect on society when they overly rely on sexist tropes".

That comment frankly hacked me off to no end, since her the entire crux of her argument is based upon framing.

Framing IS contextualization. She already is reliant upon each game's internal context and logic to make her point, and promptly discounting any context whatsoever which does not further her argument. It's arbitrary, predisposed, and borderline intellectually dishonest.

Hell, using her standards for what defines "context" for the purpose of her own argument, I can argue the Witch in L4D is one of the most misogynist things ever to have been introduced in the history of gaming.

 

[Dastardly]

If the feminists and the supporters would like to see the change of the game industry, shouldn't they write a letter, start a petition or kickstarter to directly approach the publishers to release more female-oriented games?

That'd be pissing in the wind, really, at this point. The publishers are stuck in the "They know what they like, and they like what they know, and they know what they like, and they like..." cycle. Folks who are behind causes like this are hoping to raise awareness among consumers. To get them to do precisely what you're asking.

What they've been doing is criticising and vilifying the average gamers and game developers that make games with racy contents, those barely floating on the line. They don't really have enough influence to change the game industry. If we lived in the ideal world, we'd see more games like Beyond Good and Evil but I never saw publishers promoting it to Tomb Raider's level.

And this is not what's been happening. They're simply trying to get people to ask, "Why is this considered 'average' anyway?" Why are there so many similarities among female characters in games (when there are any), while there is so much diversity in other areas? This is not vilifying the average gamer. It's challenging an accepted practice. The only "vilifying" occurs when someone doesn't like anyone challenging their comfort.

I can understand Sarkeesian needs to release a video to raise an awareness of the sexism but I'm not sure this helps exactly how. All it does is insinuating that games do influence gamers to commit violence, the same exactly message Fox News are content on repeating. Doesn't it mean if you agree with Anita Sarkeesian's views, you basically agree with Jack Thompson and the likes that games do after all perpetuate real life violence. Do you agree with Sarkeesian's view because she's a woman or what?

This makes it sound like you're dismissing an argument outright because you feel it has "riders" that you have to accept, regardless of whether or not the issue at hand is true. But also, you're turning the issue backwards to do it. She is not saying that video games cause this problem. She is saying that it's a symptom of a larger social issue. And video games are helping perpetuate this existing problem by making it more and more "normal."

If I come across a house that is on fire, and do nothing, I'm allowing the fire to continue. If I throw a toothpick on the fire, I am contributing to that fire. If enough people throw enough toothpicks, the fire can (and will) get bigger -- or at least continue indefinitely. Sarkeesian knows she can't put out the fire, and she can't stop every toothpick from being thrown... but she could at least convince a few people to throw fewer.

 

[generals3]

snip

If your problem is that publishers are stuck in their ways which are wrong. Prove them wrong. Make your own market research showing they are wrong. That is much much more likely to have an impact than whatever Anita is trying to do.

I'm fairly certain that publishers like EA and Activision would gladly accept a free thorough market research which could open a lot of profit-making opportunities for them.