alanschu

Interesting point. Do we (people like you and I) look at the comments that someone like Anita makes differently because we don't really take part in the games that may be particularly egregious towards their depiction of women? I consider myself a fairly diverse gamer, but even in the event that RPGs are my game of choice, I still see some of those "effects" particularly with common things such as attire (specifically armor). At the same time, I'm not against a female character being drawn "attractively" and when I look at, say Theodora from Civ 5, I go "She looks pretty good. Well done artist!"

And Twilight is a massive best seller. After that feminists tell us these stereotypes turn women off. No, feminists say that stuff like that is bad for how women are perceived. Stated like that, do you disagree? The thing about feminism is that it's a movement, and a fluid one at that. As such, you're going to get the asshats that take it way too far, as well as some that just pay it lipservice. This helps proliferate misconceptions about what feminism is. With respect to your point, it's important to note that attraction is a social construct. What we find attractive today in our own culture may not have been what we found attractive in our culture in the past, and we certainly may not agree with what different cultures find beautiful. Feminist speak as much to women as they do towards men, because their goal is create awareness of the perceived inequalities that they feel women have to deal with. You're going to have those that take things too far (any woman that wants to avoid the workforce and just be a mom undermines all of womankind), while the moderates are more representative of the larger group (a woman that wants to primarily raise children is fine as long as the decision is hers and she's aware of the other opportunities, rather than one because she thinks that's all her role is in life and what society expects of her). Even saying that, being a feminist does not even mean that one cannot find someone like Robert Pattinson (or even his character, Edward) attractive. Their issues with Twilight come with the notions that Bella always needs to have a man in her life, that it's okay for a 100+ year old man to effectively follow and watch Bella because his interests are pure and clean. Their concerns come from the young women that go "oh that's so romantic. I wish I was Bella" as opposed to any person that goes "I enjoyed the movie." I dislike racism, but I can still enjoy a blacksploitation film. I don't want what happens in the film to happen in real life at all, and (naturally... ) find myself well adjusted enough to be able to recognize that it's a film built upon leveraging stereotypes (some of which might even be flattering towards said race) for an entertainment purpose. That I may disagree with the portrayal of certain memes in video gaming doesn't mean I feel that developers/gamers are malicious and worthy of scorn. I'll be the first to admit that I have made my own mistakes of not properly realizing that something that I say/do may be a slur. Heck, someone on this very forum once got on my case for referring to the Japanese as "Japs" in an AAR of a WW2 game because it's considered a slur. My initial reaction is "well that's kind of picky" and I get defensive about it, but in the end all he did was let me know about it (possibly because it was offensive to him), and it's up to me to decide what to do with that knowledge. Feminism is just a perspective, with a lot of different people taking part in it. Much like how a Capitalist is going to look at economics and look at decisions that affect economic policy and make statements about how some decisions are good or bad. This doesn't mean it's authoritatively correct at all times in all situations. Feminists have their perspective, and their going to examine what effects certain forms of media have on gender roles and expectations, specifically with how they affect women. Something like twilight, for most feminists, is bad because it runs the risk of encouraging young women that the scenarios depicted in the book should be considered ideal. By the same token, I know two women that do consider themselves feminists that read and enjoyed the whole series (one was on Team Jacob, the other on Team Edward), but recognize that the books are hardly literary masterpieces. For them it was just simple escapism. (Though perhaps appropriately, neither of them thought much of Bella).

You can call someone's knowledge frail but you wouldn't refer to a woman as frail meaning their knowledge is unsubstantial, a person would not be described in the same context as 2. unless the property was also referred to, it's highly unlikely that someone would intentionally use the word frail and not mean something physical, unless they meant morally weak which does not fit the context. Also I think you mean explicitly or exclusively, not intrinsically. It's perfectly possible that someone has used a phrase equivalent to "a person was frail" meaning a non-physical property, words a meaning carriers, they are symbols. In this culture, especially speaking to a wide audience, frail means physical, is a physically biased word in English culture, as is slight and substantial. Number 3 also works. Something that is easily broken or destroyed... the context does not mean that the physical self is broken or destroyed. Many people are easily broken emotionally. The important thing about #4, as well, is the note "See Synonyms at weak." Stating that someone is frail does not mean that you are addressing their physical stature. Furthermore, I did mean intrinsically. From the definition: "Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent." In this application, exclusive would have been a synonym, but in my opinion was not strong enough of a word. I definitely did NOT mean explicit, since the intrinsic nature of something is certainly not explicit. I disagree with your conclusion that the use of frail, particularly within the context of the example given (especially given that three of the words she used - weak, frail, fragile - are actually considered synonyms) give a certain indication that she is referring to physical strength, especially when taking into the context of the rest of the sentence. Since words are symbols, the context by which they are used is also important. Especially for the English language. Even when looking at the physical, a physically muscular man can still be called frail, if his constitution is reflective of someone that has a low threshold of pain or an inadequate immune system (i.e. if he is sickly)

In general I find feminists do pan Twilight an awful lot (Link here of one example). Might depend on which type of self-titled feminist we're interacting with, however, as I'm sure there are some that are willing to excuse Twilight simply because they like it. I will defer. This is part of the problem with criticisms, though, in that the extreme points of view are the ones most likely to be used as examples. For example, even on ME3 the story that gains the most traction is not "Here's some well reasoned arguments for why I disliked the ending" but rather "Here's some guy filing a complaint with the FTC." It's that shocking stuff that catches attention, so my limited knowledge of comic books would predispose me to being overexposed to the extreme art styles. I agree (though I'd hesitate to assume they are younger, unfortunately). The problem I think also ties into the extreme perspectives, and if these types of games remain so popular, it helps reinforce that the "immature male gamer" is the core audience, where maybe if games weren't typically like that, we'd have more gamers that appreciated the nuanced stuff and people like you and I would therefore get more games that feature that sort of stuff as the audience would be bigger.

Just as an aside: none of these intrinsically refer to physical attributes. Frail 1. Physically weak; delicate: an invalid's frail body. 2. Not strong or substantial; slight: evidence too frail to stand up in court. 3. Easily broken or destroyed; fragile. 4. Easily led astray; morally weak. See Synonyms at weak. The second definition even gives an example of how frail can be used without referring to a physical attribute. Fragile 1. Easily broken, damaged, or destroyed; frail. 2. Lacking physical or emotional strength; delicate. 3. Lacking substance; tenuous or flimsy: a fragile claim to fame. The third definition gives an example of how it can be used without referring to a physical attribute. The first definition actually denotes it as being a synonym for frail, so I suppose we could argue that Anita is being overly verbose here. Vulnerable 1. a. Susceptible to physical or emotional injury. b. Susceptible to attack: "We are vulnerable both by water and land, without either fleet or army" (Alexander Hamilton). c. Open to censure or criticism; assailable. 2. a. Liable to succumb, as to persuasion or temptation. b. Games In a position to receive greater penalties or bonuses in a hand of bridge. In a rubber, used of the pair of players who score 100 points toward game. The first definition explicitly states "emotional" injury, but even elaborates with its other points that it does not mean it's a physical attribute. At some point you need to take some self-reflection, and to use Raithe's quote (bold emphasis mine): You're the one that ascribed that the usage of the word "naturally weaker" must mean physical strength (for fun, lets look at the definition of weaker: 1. Lacking physical strength, energy, or vigor; feeble. 2. Likely to fail under pressure, stress, or strain; lacking resistance: a weak link in a chain. 3. Lacking firmness of character or strength of will. 4. Lacking the proper strength or amount of ingredients: weak coffee. 5. Lacking the ability to function normally or fully: a weak heart. 6. Lacking aptitude or skill: a weak student; weak in math. 7. Lacking or resulting from a lack of intelligence. 8. Lacking persuasiveness; unconvincing: a weak argument. 9. Lacking authority or the power to govern. 10. Lacking potency or intensity: weak sunlight. There's more, but there's an awful lot of applications that don't refer to any sort of physical relevance) As such, I think it says more about you and your application of distaste towards feminism. You dislike the movement, don't believe in it, and as a result examine things done by them in a more critical light and read more into it than is actually there to help substantiate your actual perspective. Both you and I concluded "Men are physically stronger than women" when she made her statement. Why is the direction you went with it considered accurate, whereas mine is evidently "And now we enter the land where words say whatever we want them to say." Especially given that my application of the words subscribe to the actual definitions of the words themselves, as opposed to the ad hominem fallacy you put forth to counter my point.

I don't know. Twilight seemed to do pretty well. If the guys in there were a "girls dream" of a guy, I can only conclude that girls wants guys to look and act like girls... Of course, no guy worth his testosterone would like to be caught dead watching it Maybe it's because of the comfort inherent in familiarity? The medium is likely the barrier. If gaming was more dominated by women (particularly the women that like movies/books like Twilight), we would probably see more games in the vein of twilight. Although your comment does lead to some level of an epiphany for me. Hypersexualization of women is less of an issue in movies (or even books) I find. Possibly because the content to draw upon is so diverse? Heck, I even remember seeing some writing (from a heterosexual woman) that gay erotica had very attractive men, while traditional erotica the attractiveness of the man was clearly not an issue for the casting, and she found this frustrating. I saw a post on BSN (in a discussion about male privilege in games) where the poster literally stated that he found video games to be his "masculine escape" (like football, in his words), and the inclusion of female perspective and demands was something he didn't want to have to deal with. He wanted his video games to remain definitively "manly." (as an aside, he also says he feels that men have it tougher than women in today's society. This may motivate him to feeling a need for a "masculine escape). The one link I brought up earlier echoes similar situations with comic books (I stumbled across his article as he described an experience where he brought his girlfriend to a comic book store and how unpleasant it ended up being), where he feels that there's some level of "This stuff is mine!" and the idea of the grubby feminists getting their paws on it and corrupting it was something he felt threatened people. Interesting idea, but aside from that I haven't really followed up on it too much.

Depends on the fiction. From what very little exposure I have of comic books, I'd say the Ryan Gosling imagery isn't that common. I don't know how common it is in video games either. My issue tends to come more from how the character is represented as a whole, rather than purely based on looks. For example, Isabella is one of my favourite NPCs, who dresses in less than protective clothing (though so dose Varric, the male rogue) and is clearly created to be a sexual person. However, the way she comes across her sexuality doesn't exist simply for the player character to have sex with her. She comes across as having her own nuances and just happens to like sex, and even uses her appearance with her own motivations in mind, and it's applied fairly consistently throughout the game. Lara Croft in Tomb Raider 2 is fine, right up until the end of the game Lara seems to be her usual badass self, until a shower scene.... She looks at the camera, comments "haven't you seen enough" and shoots the camera. At that point it is sort of the game developer stating "Yeah, we made her so that you'd want to ogle her." This had the effect on the Mary Sue writer that loved the first game, and then later ended up feeling as though Lara "wasn't for her" which is unfortunate. Eh, there is still some level that permeates gaming today. There's been games that have given achievements/trophies for getting a close up shot of women's cleavage (you can see it as a part of OXM's tongue in cheek video ) and the like. I know the God of War achievement for Bros before Hos saw some level of backlash as well (I don't actually know the context for getting the achievement though). I still see it in Dragon Age games (women wearing this same piece of armor have their cleavage showing, where a guy does not....) even though I'd prefer they not be in there and actively state that I don't like it when it comes up. But if one is going to rely on the profits justification (a perspective that I am skeptical about - though I haven't seen any sort of breakdown and find it hard to really prove this one way or another myself). I have heard this. Though as someone that didn't romance Jack, I did notice Jack seemed pretty well adjusted in ME3 (which probably happens regardless, however), so I don't have any first hand insight regarding this, however. Though I think Raithe's quote could seem pretty apt. Anita uses the word "strong" which initially made me go "Is she referring to physical strength?" I ended up assuming that she is referring to something more like strength of character (things like resolve and capability of rescuing someone) because men typically are physically stronger. My assumption may be incorrect, however.

I loved the N7 soldiers raging about being awarded weapons that were not relevant to them. "A shotgun!? I'm an adept! This is useless!" Same with the "I found myself getting assigned less once those Turian Engineers showed up" and whatnot lol. I actually missed a lot of these but my friend was giving me a recap of the ones he found.

And they take priority over the men that do like it why? *I* don't want to see most of those stereotypes. I don't want to see many things. I'm not going to call people names for making it. No one is saying that they should take priority. Anita is simply stating her perspective on the matter, which isn't even unique (nor is it even a uniquely female perspective). If one views this particular treatment of women in games as potentially damaging in some way, then I think it's worth looking into what would cause someone to like this particular trope. We're all social beings and on some level, constant exposure to various perceptions can have an effect on one's perception of the world. What I find interesting is that, personally, I have some level of cognitive dissonance because I feel that the effects of violence in video games has on youth is overstated, yet here I am wondering if constant exposure to these types of tropes has an effect on kids people. The events aren't precisely the same (and I certainly haven't spent any time trying to dissect the differences the two may have), but I find it interesting that I can take two issues that have arguments that aren't that dissimilar yet conclude one one way, and another the other way. (Yay confirmation bias) Maybe it's just some level of projection on my part that, since I tend to loathe many of the tropes in gaming, I can see this as being some level of "If this causes devs to change" and latching onto it! EDIT: Changed kids to people.

@Chaz Unfortunately since you've effectively stated that you have a don't like feminists (which is fine), and because Anita identifies as a feminist, you ascribe to her all that you hate about feminists in general, I don't think there's much reason to continue on. In my opinion, I consider you as dogmatic as you claim she is, for no other reason than I believe that anyone else not considering themselves a feminist would result in a more nuanced and less outright hostile response from you. As such, I don't see our interactions really being in any way constructive. I disagree with your assessment on females in video games (even today), and you disagree with mine, and I think it's best to just leave it at that as it's not like we're going to convince the other and I'm beyond the point where it's an interesting conversation between two sides that happen to disagree.

That would be quite nice. As many times as I've heard the false equivalency argument, I've never actually seen someone give an example of what an idealized(instead of sexualized) woman would be/look like. There are non-hypersexualized depictions of women in comics/games. Just like there are moderate images for men. In my opinion, both of these are still typically considered "attractive" they just aren't hyper sexualized. BG2's portraits are pretty well done IMO, but they are only face shots (and even then, one could argue Jaheira was made prettier than her portrait in BG1, probably because she's a love interest. Same with Viconia. Might be best to just go with BG1's portraits actually haha). Of course, Neverwinter Nights completely dropped the ball with Aribeth

No, I think the point flew over your head. You latched onto the picture (and evidently decided to not bother reading it either). I have a pitch for the new protagonist in an upcoming video game: http://media1.santabanta.com/full1/Global%20Celebrities%28M%29/Justin%20Bieber/justin-bieber-4a.jpg I'm sure guys would love it. But it wouldn't make sense to do so, right? I mean, for the profits and all. Since you seem to have glossed it over, here's this one again too (I'll even share the whole picture)

I suppose one could argue that women like not seeing that trope over and over? XD Although the irony of this all is I think a lot of gamers, men and women, would like not seeing this trope over and over (and a lot of tropes for that matter).

Hopefully not where he compares it to a first year course, because if so...man...he went to a crappy school HAHA. I think it's more just that the whole video comes across as a standard lecture for a course hahaha.

This is certainly part of it in my opinion Anita is NOT saying "Gamers are misogynistic for liking these games!" Heck, she isn't even saying DEVELOPERS are misogynistic for using this trope. I like Double Dragon myself (Double Dragon II was one of my favourites on the NES) She's saying that this trope exists and has strong roots in the history of gaming. She evidently considers this trope to be something that isn't ultimately good (feel free to disagree with this position) for gaming, particularly when considering that women are becoming gamers more and more. And since the motivation is all about the profits (right), maybe more profits stand to be made by breaking down this barrier because evidently for guys the existence of this trope is inconsequential to them right? She did point out Wind Waker and Ocarina of Time, where Zelda does just fine while in disguise. In Twilight Princess, is Zelda not incognito like the others? This was pretty much Movie Bob's reaction as well. As in this is what got the internet in such a huff? Imoen is different, as you say, because she isn't kidnapped explicitly because she is a woman, and is certainly not helpless in her own right. Although BioWare arguably could have done something better than making rescuing her a focus of the story (that's an RPG discussion, though).

This is called False Equivalence. Males are typically depicted in a way that they are appealing to men. Females are typically depicted in a way that they are appealing to men. Check out this link and scroll down to "But men are all super-buff, they’re sexually objectified too! Men Want to Watch Desirable Women, Women Want to Be Desirable Women" for a breakdown of it (though his poll is unscientific, the results of what men consider "sexy" men and what women consider "sexy" men are different. Here's a web comic that provides a clearer representation. And if your counter argument is going to be "Well she's just drawing on her own stereotypes to make that Batman look the way that she wants" I'd say you're correct. What's considered attractive is as much perpetuated by culture and environment, probably more so, than anything biological. As such, that this whole discussion even exists now (where it didn't twenty years ago) is probably a reflection of the fact that there are a lot more female gamers out there. EDIT: Interestingly I missed this: The link I put up above predicts the "white knight" defense and attempts to break it down

This is more a reflection that the comments sections of articles are typically stupid and not productive. There's actually studies being done to show how negative comments can alter someone's perspective of the feedback, even isolated against the frequency and even position of the feedback. Stating that she isn't "interested in a conversation" because she disabled comments is misdirection. I'm skeptical any sort of actual conversation would have taken place, but it provides a convenient angle for you to attack Anita's position, without actually addressing Anita's video. In fact, it's an ad hominem fallacy that you use to attack Anita in place of critiquing her actual material Furthermore, a "conversation" doesn't need to take place. She's exploring tropes in gaming as a whole, and starting from the beginning. It's PART ONE of her whole series. Gaming has its roots in leveraging that trope. It's less common now, but do we still see its influences now? I think so. As for the bolded part, it only demonstrates that you don't actually understand the problem. Going and saving her doesn't make you a misogynist (nor does it even make you sexist), and Anita has never said so (in fact she states straight up that the existence of the trope does NOT make a game sexist or meaningless. This is straw man, and undermines your point more than Anita not allowing comments. Movie Bob's critique is pretty apt: as gamers we're all perfectly capable of saying "It's kind of stupid that Peach gets kidnapped ALL the time" and no one blinks an eye. Someone comes and sits down with the goal of exploring these themes from a feminist viewpoint, and she's dragged over coals despite stating things others have already said. That a game's focus was not on the writing doesn't excuse the trope from being used. It was still used and is open to being explored. The issue is more "Why does this trope exist, and is there anything that should be done about it? And if so, why should we do about it?" You're being dismissive (as though you aren't really interested in having a conversation...). Video games were made towards the male audience because, especially at the time, gamers were predominantly male. Your assertion does not dispute my proposition, despite your condescending tone (Bob...). I agree that women are more common. Perhaps this is why this topic is now being addressed whereas it was glossed over more in the past? This trope extends beyond protagonist selection. Furthermore, it's about distribution. Having a handful of games that let you play as a female is a red herring. First of all, feminism is literally "The advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men.." The point of Bowser vs. Mario is that it reinforces the objectification. In that, Peach is literally an object that is being fought over between two entities (man or otherwise). Regarding the bolded: On what foundation do you not "believe in the patriarchy and believe that the representation of video games portrays women in a very positive light?" Is it your own recounts of the games that you have played and what you think? Or is there something more to it? False dilemma, AND failure to understand the point again. Miyamoto probably didn't go "I HATE WOMEN" but he did (for some reason) completely alter the character in such a way. If the motive is "profits" does that make it right? It's exceptionally unlikely that Miyamoto hates women. However, it is rather interesting that Miyamoto seems to use the trope so much in his games. Why is that? Especially if we typically dismiss the trope as a crutch for poor stories of older games. If changing the game to alter Krystal the way she is presented actually does make significant difference in how profitable a game is, then this issue is significantly more important than Anita's video leads it on because it actually does represent significant systemic/institutional sexism that exists in video games. This is a bad thing, unless perhaps you're one of the types that simply goes "but I like it this way and I don't want it to change." Which if that's the case, just come out and say so.

I find myself agreeing with a lot of Movie Bob's assessment.

Heroes of Might and Magic is not the same thing as Might and Magic.

Have you actually played the new one? I haven't but most people I know have enjoyed it.

alanschu

Was able to get a copy of SimCity for free, so I have been trying it out. Decidedly addictive I find, and I am enjoying the multiplayer aspect.

She probably doesn't allow comments or votes because this whole idea resulted in throngs of twits literally threatening her physical harm and telling her that she needs to be raped and the like. There's mountains of dip****s out there that loathe her, all the while failing to recognize that their own dogmatic hatred only serves to grant her more visibility. The main point of her video is that damsel in distress is exceptionally common as a gaming trope, to the point where the woman serves as little more than to be an object to be fought over by two male people. Your point that it's nothing more than a loved one being rescued by a partner would be accurate if the distribution of scenario breakdown either was representative of reality, or at the very least not in line with a lot of other media that utilizes the trope in an unflattering way. No. The gaming industry has a history of focusing exclusively towards males, and has been serving to propagate negative (and recently created, as in since about the industrial revolution) stereotypes about the role of women. Seriously, as a game developer I have no clue how you concluded that she feels that the video game is a patriarchal organization that is out to subjugate women. I certainly didn't feel that she accused me of anything of the sort. At best she concludes that Shigeru Miyamoto relies on the trope as a means of story telling. Though she also straight up states that the existence of this trope in a game doesn't mean the game is without value nor even sexist. Just that the trope is common. As far as I'm concerned, the biggest failing of Anita's video is that she effectively doesn't state anything that most people already recognized as being rather obvious. I found it too safe and too conservative as most of it made me go "well yeah." She has a couple of interesting points that I wasn't aware of (Rare's game), but mostly picked at the low hanging fruit (which people have used to undermine the video). It has little to do with the fact that there was opposition, but rather the level of maturity by which some of the opposition decided to present itself (which was, essentially, admitting that they straight up are sexist and misogynistic). That someone is critical of her doesn't mean that she is right (nor wrong), but the irony is that those that decided to whip out 110% ad hominem attacks only served to make her more visible and demonstrate that there is, in fact, a sizable portion of gamers that really need to have their heads examined.

And in that they differ from the male npcs how exactly? This is the crux. I look at Nonek's post and see it more as a critique of NPCs in general (and if you think about it, it's a large issue in RPGs, or even gaming, in general). Are we perhaps a bit to "hero focused?" Maybe. But at the same time, how well do gamers respond to things when they are outside their control to the point where they feel restricted. Place a timer and people get real upset. Make it so you can only accomplish 4/5 things where the last thing gets resolved (somehow) in its own way? Could maybe work a bit better. Having a problem exist for the NPC that the NPC always resolves entirely on his/her own without PC involvement will lead to some RPGer types to wonder "what's the point" as there's no interactivity or influence the player can exert to alter the outcome. Although as a counterpoint, Isabella does deal with the ruffians in the bar all on her own, when you first meet her.

I did just that!