Anita Sarkeesian/Tropes and Women in Gaming

[Chaz]

I found several videos on youtube of different lady gamers responding to sarkeesian, saying that men are as objectified as much as women on video games, they are super fit, muscular and handsome the same way women have thin waist and big breasts.

But no, for feminists, sexism is a one way street and it only happens when men do it.

 

Also the narrative used in video games, damsel in distress beign one of them is supposed to be empowering for the player, not just the men. As human beigns we are able to relate and empathize with other human beigns even if they are a different gender, in my case I played as kerrigan in Starcraft 2 recently and I loved it. The same way, ladies can play with a male character and still enjoy the game and the story, I even heard some girl gamers saying that they like watching Ezio's butt, Who da thunk it, it turns out women objetivize men as well, it may turn out that they are sexually attracted to men after all.

 

I don't want to insult anybody, but it looks like many gamers don't even want to tackle this issue because they don't have the balls or they have a white knight complex, the ones I've seen critisize this point of view were mostly other gamer girls and some guys that have channels that have nothing to with gaming but are more like skeptics and decided to point out the fallacies in her arguments.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Chaz

[Oner]

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.

Don't see why I couldn't be both, to be honest.

[Starwars]

I thought the first video was OK, I certainly do hope that following videos gets more in-depth.

 

And if I were in her position, I'd most certainly also disallow comments and the like. Not even taking into account the various rape and violence comments around the kickstarter time, but just the way guys tend to "bro up" whenever there's a woman involved. On the Internet, a woman can announce herself in a chatroom/forum/whatever the case, and you can sometimes literally *feel* the creepy shift in some people. I certainly wouldn't want to be a target of that. I know what it means to be trolled, and that there are avenues on the Internet that have their own "code" of how they speak. But in a channel as open as youtube is, no way.

 

Furthermore, it's interesting to me that there are so many who take a video like this so... defensively. Noone is denying that there are tropes against men, against wolves (those innocent wolves who always gets slaughtered in RPGs), against... *anything*. The video is not an attack on men. Yes, there are millions of other subjects that she could've chosen to tackle. But she chose to tackle this one. If you want to make a video about tropes vs males, then knock yourself out.

But perhaps... Just perhaps, there is a reason why tropes vs women needs to be highlighted more? Perhaps the history of females being subdued still has an impact nowadays? Perhaps there are reason why threats of rape against a woman on the internet, even if trolling, tends to bang a little louder than the usual internet stupidity? Equality between genders has come a long way but it has a looooooooooooooong way to go still.

 

Will this series of videos make it all better? I don't know. As has been evidenced, I'm sure there are people who will simply get enflamed by it.

 

I certainly hope there will be more depth in upcoming videos anyways. But I do think it's an important discussion that *needs* to be brought up again and again, especially in a medium that is as young and immature still as videogames are.

[Oner]

"Furthermore, it's interesting to me that there are so many who take a video like this so... defensively."

No offense, but this is silly. If people disagree, they are defensive, if they deliver counter-argumens, they are misogynists or haters or whatever. If they don't give detailed critique, they are mindless bashers. If they give detailed critique, they (and I quote from another site's comments) "fine combing her video for the smallest errors".

Could we just skip the silly labels please?

[Starwars]

It's not silly at all. I'm all for constructive criticism, and like I said, I think more depth is needed in the videos. But I am not talking about the people who want to discuss, I'm talking about the large amount of people who get fired up, who get angry, who take this as an attack on their own gender. They certainly exist (again, the time around the kickstarter certainly proved that) and reacted even more strongly than one might usually expect even on the Internet. And *that* mentality is... well, pretty scary and disturbing if you ask me.

 

EDIT: Like someone mentioned before, these videos are not an all-out attack on something similar to what Jack Thompson did. If it was, I could at least understand where the anger is coming from.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Starwars

[Chaz]

I do think that these videos are an attack or will turn into one as new videos are released, and what bothers me is that this isn't really about video games, this is about feminism, which in my opinion should have no place in video games, the same way masculinism should have no place in video games. What sarkeesian does in her channel is watch movies and series and comment on how sexist and misogynist they are, and that's what she plans to do for video games.

 

I previously made the comparison on how the NRA picked on the gaming industry blaming them for gun violance, hell even video games were burnt by ignorant people in response to sandy hook, we're easy target and part of the reason is because we don't fight back. There are tropes against women and men, and also against wolves like it was pointed out. Is it really an issue? No, sarkeesian is making it an big issue to advance her feminist agenda.

 

If you want to watch some youtubers criticizing her video or her views in general you can check out the channel of some male and female youtubers such as: nyxikins, Thunderf00t, InuitInua, MrRepzion, KiteTales, TheAmazingAtheist and Leahtastical.
 

[Fighter]

It's all kinda nonsense. I mean I get that if you are a girl in a predominantly male hobby it sucks that most things aren't made for you. But that doesn't mean that things made to portray male fantasies are wrong or hateful towards women. A lot of games' writing isn't sexists it's shallow and lacking nuance. It uses the simplest tricks like saving the girl which appeals to boys strongly on a very basic level.

 

Once they realize they can make just as much money from women as men you'll see more female centric games. I'm just not sure what most women want is what Anita thinks they want. I doubt she'll appreciate Twilight in video game form.

 

Also her story of the origins of the damsel in distress trope doesn't seem to even acknowledge the most basic thing from which a lot of these roles stem. Which is biology. Like it or not men are better suited for physical confrontation. The role of protector wasn't created by patriarchy, it was created by evolution. That is a huge influence on the way people think and stories they make.

[AwesomeOcelot]

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.

Doesn't have to be representative of reality, it's not reality it's fantasy, realism is a stylistic choice, a matter of taste. How do games utilize the trope in an unflattering way?

[Bartimaeus]

I thought her problem with the trope was not that, in itself, there's something wrong with it, and not that it's the fault of the players that it occurs, but rather the frequency that developers purposefully make it occur, (in addition to there generally being more male protagonists than female protagonists).

 

...but then again, I can't think of any games I've played and enjoyed that utilized the DiD trope, besides the Marios. Baldur's Gate II, maybe? ...but it's your sister. Sure, you don't KNOW Imoen is your sister at first, but that's mostly besides the point, given the context the games give. And since you can play either male or female...well, like I said - if there's a problem, it's on the fault of the developers, not us players.

 

In regards to female protagonists...even in a game like Zelda: Twilight Princess, (one of the games she sort-of used as showing the DiD trope), you have both a female and male protagonist - both of who kick butt together. Odd that she didn't mention that.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[Malcador]

I imagine the reaction is probably due to her criticizing video games and these people see it as an attack on a hobby they like. Well at least some, maybe the rest is just dog piling and her reaction to that just feeds more. Other than that I can't see anyone mustering up more than a shrug about this.

[Nonek]

...but then again, I can't think of any games I've played and enjoyed that utilized the DiD trope, besides the Marios. Baldur's Gate II, maybe? ...but it's your sister. Sure, you don't KNOW Imoen is your sister at first, but that's mostly besides the point, given the context the games give. And since you can play either male or female...well, like I said - if there's a problem, it's on the fault of the developers, not us players.

 

As I pointed out earlier however it's Imoen who springs you from Irenicus' prison at the beginning of the game, thus making you the damsel in distress and your later rescue more a matter of payback. I agree with Malcador however this is largely mountain out of molehill piffle.

[Sannom]

There are tons of content makers out there that are trolled, insulted and even threatened by some, not all, of the people in the comments. Yet still they don't disable them. Also when you disable comments you are not only silencing the trolls, you are silencing people that have valid critisism and also the people that agree with you that could add to the conversation, but she's not interested in a conversation, you disable comments, you are here to preach so at least let's admit that.

Not only are youtube comments on the lowest scales of relevancy and interest, but the very way they are set-up makes it hard to hold a conversation or debate. Youtube is not where you go to express your ideas about the video you just watched.

Which of these scenarios is more likely to you? Miyamoto made Star Fox the main character of Dinosaur Planet because he dislike females and didn't want to have krystal as the protagonist or he simply decided that a famous character from an established franchise would bring them more money? Again, they are after profits, it's not a conspiracy against women.

Second explanation, obviously. However, he's still the guy who decided to down-grade her from kick-ass protagonist to unmoving object of desire with no agency. That's lazy and unacceptable.

And as a final note, while she complains that a strong character like Krystal was turned into a damsel, in her thesis she says that strong females are not really feminists, they are just pretending to be male because strength is a male trait. So which one is it, does she want strong female characters or not?

I think she, like a lot of other people who reacted badly to the 'strong female characters', wanted 'strong characters, female' rather than 'female characters, strong'. I can't remember from whom is the original quote.

 

I found several videos on youtube of different lady gamers responding to sarkeesian, saying that men are as objectified as much as women on video games, they are super fit, muscular and handsome the same way women have thin waist and big breasts.

That argument has been put forth and then slapped out of the way by so many people, in almost all visual media, why are people still using it? The women are objectified as objects of desire for the male audience, male protagonists are given fantasized attributes of strength and body perfection for the sake of escapism. Male characters are also far more diverse in their builds and appearance than women are.

I previously made the comparison on how the NRA picked on the gaming industry blaming them for gun violance, hell even video games were burnt by ignorant people in response to sandy hook, we're easy target and part of the reason is because we don't fight back. There are tropes against women and men, and also against wolves like it was pointed out. Is it really an issue? No, sarkeesian is making it an big issue to advance her feminist agenda.

Heu, non. Sarkeesian has played and enjoyed video games, even a few of those she currently criticizes. It is a hobby that she enjoys. The NRA people are nutjobs who want to take the heat off their own hobby by attacking another.

 

I thought her problem with the trope was not that, in itself, there's something wrong with it, and not that it's the fault of the players that it occurs, but rather the frequency that developers purposefully make it occur, (in addition to there generally being more male protagonists than female protagonists).

I don't think that was her point, really. She seems to want to make an extensive presentation of the Damsel in Distress trope, so she went for the examples which made her point clearer : Mario and Zelda, in which the distressed damsel is robbed of any sort of agency and is reduced to a McGuffin, an object. The Zelda she mentioned adds insult to injury by having Zelda be a strong, competent individual for most of the game and then suddenly lose all of that just so that she can put back in her 'traditional' 'role' as a distressed damsel. Edited March 17, 2013 by Sannom

[Bartimaeus]

 

...but then again, I can't think of any games I've played and enjoyed that utilized the DiD trope, besides the Marios. Baldur's Gate II, maybe? ...but it's your sister. Sure, you don't KNOW Imoen is your sister at first, but that's mostly besides the point, given the context the games give. And since you can play either male or female...well, like I said - if there's a problem, it's on the fault of the developers, not us players.

 

As I pointed out earlier however it's Imoen who springs you from Irenicus' prison at the beginning of the game, thus making you the damsel in distress and your later rescue more a matter of payback. I agree with Malcador however this is largely mountain out of molehill piffle.

 

So...what you're saying is...that if you happen to play a female in BG2, it doubly insults women? How degrading! Shame on the developers! :D

 

@Sannom: Yeah, I remember the Wind Waker one. That particular point of the game always bothered me myself, actually. You have Tetra being cool and helping you out a lot of the game...and then she turns into "Zelda" and has to sit locked away in a basement for about a third of the game. Yeah, that's real nice.

 

I know that was her point, but wasn't the implication that it's...y'know, sort of wrong for developers to keep using that sort of plot device over and over?

Edited March 17, 2013 by Bartimaeus

[Volourn]

She's a sexist piece of crap. There are sexist peioce of crap males and there are sexist peice of crap females.

 

Besdies, as mnetioned numerous times, 'save the damsel' isn't even the most common trope for video game stories. 'Save the world' is.

 

Plus, there is a lot of male bashing/stereotyping/trashing in video games.

 

Stop being a little crybaby and get over it.

[Chaz]

Heu, non. Sarkeesian has played and enjoyed video games, even a few of

those she currently criticizes. It is a hobby that she enjoys. The NRA

people are nutjobs who want to take the heat off their own hobby by

attacking another.

 

Many feminists are also nutjobs, they are against biology, they are against sex and this one is against freedom of speech. In her own video sarkeesian says that the idea that females are weaker than males is a completely socially constructed myth, and that's just factually wrong. In our species males and females have different physical characteristics and males are stronger, it's  not a fabrication, it is a fact.

 

But she doesn't care about any facts that would challenge her position, and that's the reason she disabled comments. Also do you think DiD is also a myth constructed by the patriarchy too or do you think it has to do with the facts that throughout history males have taken on the roles of protectors because they are physicaly stronger?

 

For me she is no different than an NRA nutjob or a religious extremist, the sad thing is that we usually don't give 160k so they can attack video games.

 

That argument has been put forth and then slapped out of the way by so many people

 

Now, wait a minute, if a girl says she is attracted to a male character and she objectivize it who are you to tell her that she is not attracted? I could understand that they are muscular for male escapism, but the devs make them pretty boys for male escapsim too?

 

Not only are youtube comments on the lowest scales of relevancy and

interest, but the very way they are set-up makes it hard to hold a

conversation or debate. Youtube is not where you go to express your

ideas about the video you just watched.

 

To be honest, I don't find much difference in arguing with someone on youtube or with you here, both are anonymous guys* in the internet

 

Second explanation, obviously. However, he's still the guy who decided

to down-grade her from kick-ass protagonist to unmoving object of desire

with no agency.

 

If you understand that video games are for profit and that making fox the main character was the right move how is it unacceptable? Also if there is a victim here (I dont think there is) it's not the women of the world, the "victims" in this case were the guys at Rareware, because their original vision for the game was changed by the publisher, and the character they created was relegated to a secondary role.

 

I don't think that was her point, really. She seems to want to make an

extensive presentation of the Damsel in Distress trope, so she went for

the examples which made her point clearer : Mario and Zelda, in which

the distressed damsel is robbed of any sort of agency and is reduced to a

McGuffin, an object.

 

As I said before, the DiD trope is designed to empower the PLAYER, not the males (even if males were much more predominant among gamers) and you know why the damsel is robbed of agency? because they are not the player, they are not the main character, they are not the protagnist.

 

Also a guy can play as a male or female character (I recently played as Kerrigan in sc2) and you can still relate to them because we are all human, the same way a woman can play as a male character and still relate to it, but it looks like this concept escapes sarkeesian since she lacks any kind of empathy.

 

In pretty much all the games the NPCs have no agency unless they are a villain or a companion, NPCs just stand around and wait for you to solve their problems for them, they are helpless without the player.

Edited March 17, 2013 by Chaz

[pmp10]

Also do you think DiD is also a myth constructed by the patriarchy too or do you think it has to do with the facts that throughout history males have taken on the roles of protectors because they are physicaly stronger?

Actually that 'protector' role is due to the simple fact that given human reproduction cycle males are far more expendable.

AFAIK it has nothing to do with physical attributes.

[Chaz]

 

Also do you think DiD is also a myth constructed by the patriarchy too or do you think it has to do with the facts that throughout history males have taken on the roles of protectors because they are physicaly stronger?

Actually that 'protector' role is due to the simple fact that given human reproduction cycle males are far more expendable.

AFAIK it has nothing to do with physical attributes.

 And you base this opinion on what scientific evidence?

[pmp10]

 

 

 

 

Also do you think DiD is also a myth constructed by the patriarchy too or do you think it has to do with the facts that throughout history males have taken on the roles of protectors because they are physicaly stronger?

Actually that 'protector' role is due to the simple fact that given human reproduction cycle males are far more expendable.

AFAIK it has nothing to do with physical attributes.

 

 

 And you base this opinion on what scientific evidence?

 

 

On anthropological studies of primitive tribes.

The hunter-gatherer people tended to form egalitarian tribes.

Only advancement to farming communities allowed growth of so much population that wars could be fought to the point of annihilation.

Losing women to war (whether to combat or kidnapping) meant a huge hit to reproductive prospect of the community and weakened it's prospects for the upcoming generations.

On the other hand losing men was more acceptable as you could temporarily suspend rules of monogamy and/or incest prohibition and be mostly fine population-wise for the future.

[Chaz]

 

 

 

Also do you think DiD is also a myth constructed by the patriarchy too or do you think it has to do with the facts that throughout history males have taken on the roles of protectors because they are physicaly stronger?

Actually that 'protector' role is due to the simple fact that given human reproduction cycle males are far more expendable.

AFAIK it has nothing to do with physical attributes.

 

 And you base this opinion on what scientific evidence?

 

On anthropological studies of primitive tribes.

The hunter-gatherer people tended to form egalitarian tribes.

Only advancement to farming communities allowed growth of so much population that wars could be fought to the point of annihilation.

Losing women to war (whether to combat or kidnapping) meant a huge hit to reproductive prospect of the community and weakened it's prospects for the upcoming generations.

On the other hand losing men was more acceptable as you could temporarily suspend rules of monogamy and/or incest prohibition and be mostly fine population-wise for the future.

 

Well, I don't like how the word expendable sounds but yeah it makes sense, and it's not only about the reproductive cycle, we have evolved so men are physically stronger to better take on the role of protector of the pack/tribe to better ensure the continuation of the species, you could say that the packs with wimpy males were wiped out, so the ones that got to evolve were the ones with strong males.

 

But if we take sarkeesian's point of view, the role of protector is a myth designed by the patriarchy,  and the Fact that males have more muscle mass than females is also another myth.

 

If anything Video Games have been more than fair to women since in many games women are as strong as males and have no statistical disadvantage

Edited March 17, 2013 by Chaz

[alanschu]

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

[Malcador]

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

Hopefully not where he compares it to a first year course, because if so...man...he went to a crappy school

[AwesomeOcelot]

I'm not even sure I accept the premise that the damsel in distress trope gives the impression that women are weak. How many male characters are captured or killed? Mario is a really strange example, because if the toad people are male, as the video suggests, then you save many more of them from castles than you do female characters. I've completed Mario Bro's 1, 3, and Galaxy, and I think I have saved many many more mushroom people than I ever did save Princess Peach. Another example, Psychonauts I would say is classic damsel in distress, yet the whole camp gets kidnapped. It's hard to argue the ill effects of this trope without taking the game as a whole. It's hard to argue that kidnapped women are sending the wrong message, when as a gamer I've rescued many times more males than females, the only difference usually is that my character is meant to give more of a **** about a specific female. The argument doesn't even pass the simplest logical scrutiny.

 

On protagonists, agency, and objects it's a tricky question. By definition a character is an object, even the PC. It's certainly harder to give a NPC agency than it is the protagonist, and being a protagonist in games, a lot of the time power fantasies, does mean they're going to be able to do things that NPCs won't. At what point would people stop complaining that there aren't enough female protagonists? Male gamers, who are the vast majority core gamer demographic, are going to prefer male protagonists. What are game developers meant to do? This could mean many lost sales, many can't risk a flop. There are still going to exist many games that have male protagonists, and they're going to be directly competing with games with female protagonists.

 

Sexism against males. I don't think it's a good idea to go tit-for-tat with this. That someone interested in equality would only focus on sexism against women is far-fetched, frankly it's obviously bull****, but that doesn't detract from what they're saying. Two wrongs don't make a right. So what if there's sexism against males too? That's not an argument for sexism against females. It's a valid criticism towards the person and their project, but it's not valid argument against what they're saying.

 

Objectification as a charge is a nonsense. Objectification is inevitable and not necessarily bad, in terms of people, in terms of fictional characters it's inevitable and necessarily not bad. Every character is an object, they're fictional characters, not real people. So what if a character is a sex object? Lets not use misleading language, they're a sex symbol, a character designed to be sexually attractive, sexually exciting. I think people who are against this should be asked questions about why they are against objects that are made to be sexually attractive, it seems to me to be their problem, to be prudish and repressed to such an extent that they're not just concerned with their own experiences but want to effect other peoples experiences.

[Spider]

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

 

Yeah. He pretty much sum up everything I feel as well.

[alanschu]

There are tons of content makers out there that are trolled, insulted and even threatened by some, not all, of the people in the comments. Yet still they don't disable them. Also when you disable comments you are not only silencing the trolls, you are silencing people that have valid critisism and also the people that agree with you that could add to the conversation, but she's not interested in a conversation, you disable comments, you are here to preach so at least let's admit that.

 

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.

 

 

 

Well it is exceptionally common if you go ahead and cherry pick the games where female are the victim and ignore the games where they are protagonists, also most of the games that were mentioned were platformers and beat em up from the 8-bit era, games that were exceptional for their lack of writing because that was simply not the focus of the game, all characters were one dimensional, and the plot is set up in literally 5 seconds, girlfriend gets punched and kidnapped by bad guys, gotta go get her. Who wouldnt help her, right? well now it looks like that if you want to help her you're a mysoginist

 

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?"

 

 

 

Wrong again Bob, the gaming industry is not out to please the men, they are out to make a profit, and the gamer demographic at the begining was overwhelmingly male dominant, mostly kids, by the way, that wouldn't give a damn about the oversimplified plot and just wanted to play because it was fun to punch bad guys in Double Dragon or eat mushrooms with Mario.

 

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...).

 

 

 

A lot of women have joined the gaming community since, and games have also changed a lot, but even back in the old school days you would have female protagonists in games like Ms Pacman or Phantasy Star, or games that would allow you to choose to play as a male or female, like the

original fallout.

 

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.

 

 

 

irst of all, pretty much all feminist belive in the patriarchy and It came off to me that way when she said "in the game of patriarchy, women are not the opposing team, they are the ball" while showing an image of bowser holding peach in a sphere, he's more like a monster, not a man, but you get the point. I don't belive in the patriarchy and actually I belive Video Games as a media is portraying women on a very positive light, we have a ton of strong and capable female protagonists and Im sure we'll have many more.

 

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?

 

 

 

Which of these scenarios is more likely to you? Miyamoto made Star Fox the main character of Dinosaur Planet because he dislike females and didn't want to have krystal as the protagonist or he simply decided that a famous character from an established franchise would bring them more

money? Again, they are after profits, it's not a conspiracy against women.

 

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.

Edited March 17, 2013 by alanschu

[Chaz]

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

 

Yeah, I am more on the side of the

video (btw I just realized that Thor was Kirk's dad) Edited March 17, 2013 by Chaz