Anita Sarkeesian/Tropes and Women in Gaming

[Gorth]

I'm sure guys would love it.  But it wouldn't make sense to do so, right?  I mean, for the profits and all.

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?

[Chaz]

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.

 

And now we enter the land where words say whatever we want them to say, this is what she said: "The belief that women are somehow a naturally weaker gender is a deeply engrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false. But the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuasly portrayed as frail, fragile and vulnarable creatures"

 

Naturally weaker, frail, fragile, vunlerable, these are Physical traits, are we to belive that you people still stand behind her and give her money when what she is stating goes completely against our understanding of Biology and Science?

 

And are we to belive that she's not out to attack video games when she said "Video Games tend to reinforce and amplify sexist and downright mysonist ideas about women" Honestly people do you really feel that  women are so inferior or that you hate women after you are done playing a video game?

 

Honestly if you haven't watched

go watch it Edited March 18, 2013 by Chaz

[AwesomeOcelot]

Naturally weaker, frail, fragile, vunlerable, these are Physical traits...

Only frail is primarily, the other can be used for more than just physical traits, although frail can mean "easily led astray" but I don't think that would apply to being kidnapped.

 

 

I'm sure guys would love it.  But it wouldn't make sense to do so, right?  I mean, for the profits and all.

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...

 

 

Then female gamers have a massive library of Japanese games that cater to them. Edited March 18, 2013 by AwesomeOcelot

[Raithe]

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?

 

Of course, I'm surprised feminists haven't hit on Twilight because it showcases a girl whose only purpose in the entire series is to get married to the guy who basically stalks her. Yes, he breaks into her house to watch her sleep. And he's over a hundred years old. Tell me that's a good example of a healthy romance to teach young girls they should yearn for?

[alanschu]

 

I'm sure guys would love it.  But it wouldn't make sense to do so, right?  I mean, for the profits and all.

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.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

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.

In comic books, it is pretty common actually. Outside of Liefield's art(which is generally panned) most males are illustrated as very fit, but do not look like body-builders.

 

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.

Never got over two hours in to DA2, so I can't really comment on how the characters are portrayed.

 

I would say the problem with the portrayal of women in video games is complete perception. You view Isabella as a complex female character who happens to enjoy having sex(who doesn't!?) but doesn't exist solely to have sex with the PC. Someone else may view Isabella as pure fanservice created just to give the player the ability to watch the PC have white-underwear notsex with.

 

The same can be said of the whole "save the girl" trope. Some might view it as a tired but true motive for the protagonist, while others may consider it to be disrespectful to women because it means they are good for nothing but getting kidnapped.

 

What really matters is the writers intention. Did the DA writers intend for Isabella to be a complex character or a digital sex machine? Did Zelda writers intend for Zelda to be a helpless girl incapable of saving herself or someone who has the misfortune of being the victim of an incredibly powerful villain and is needed to stop the villain?

 

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).

Well I don't really enjoy those games(hell I'm willing to throw money through kickstarter because I find them that bad) and don't play them so I wouldn't know. It seems that these games are being marketed to a specific group(younger males who play on console), who are perceived to appreciate a half-naked woman with large breasts over interesting female characters who are nuanced and have complex plot-lines.

 

I prefer games like NWN2, where the focus is less on sex and action and more on characterization. I would recommend that those who dislike the over sexualization of wimminz in teh vidya gaems try playing something besides main-stream action games which seek to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

[alanschu]

Naturally weaker, frail, fragile, vunlerable, these are Physical traits...

 

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):

 

So there we have it, women don't get respect in the video game industry because people in the industry don't tailor their games with a particularly feminist slant. They just use formulas that work. To that, I would like to reference young adult author John Green who says of reading, “ltimately, it doesn’t matter if the author intended a symbol to be there because the job of reading is not to understand the author’s intent. The job of reading is to use stories as a way of seeing other people as we see ourselves.” So too for gaming, it isn’t about what the narrative intends, but for us to see our reality. If it so happens that we see all of reality as being anti-feminist, then that says a little something about ourselves, doesn’t it?

 

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.

Edited March 18, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

 

Of course, I'm surprised feminists haven't hit on Twilight because it showcases a girl whose only purpose in the entire series is to get married to the guy who basically stalks her. Yes, he breaks into her house to watch her sleep. And he's over a hundred years old. Tell me that's a good example of a healthy romance to teach young girls they should yearn for?

 

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.

 

 

 

In comic books, it is pretty common actually. Outside of Liefield's art(which is generally panned) most males are illustrated as very fit, but do not look like body-builders.

 

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.

 

 

 

Well I don't really enjoy those games(hell I'm willing to throw money through kickstarter because I find them that bad) and don't play them so I wouldn't know. It seems that these games are being marketed to a specific group(younger males who play on console), who are perceived to appreciate a half-naked woman with large breasts over interesting female
characters who are nuanced and have complex plot-lines.

 

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.

[Fighter]

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.

 

And Twilight is a massive best seller. After that feminists tell us these stereotypes turn women off.

[AwesomeOcelot]

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.

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.

[Chaz]

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.

 

Well, thanks for at least taking back the statement that I hated you, feminism and sarkeesian just because I disagreed with you. And I don't inherintly dislike feminism, but I don't like it when it turns into sexism and misandry, I am for women righs and I am for men rights, I don't call myself a feminist because I don't think that focusing on the issues of only one gender will solve the problems of both.

 

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.

 

Well, I'm glad that we at least can find common ground in scientific fact, My previous reaction was because I considered disingenuous to belive she was talking about mental strenght when the primary and most common use of each of those words is for physical descrption, you brought them up. Also don't you think that if she was talking about mental strenght she would clarify it?

 

I've heard that according to feminists, men are not naturally stronger than females, they are socially pressured to be strong and that's why they develop more muscle mass, now if that's actually what they think it's absolutely nuts, but that actually fits into sarkeesian world view. She sees the Damsel in Distress as a social fabrication and think it's unnatural for a woman to actually need the protection of a man, when in fact men have historically protected women, due to our biological cycle they carry the babies, they feed them and for the survival of the species they needed to be protected, and I also think that's why men are more muscular, to be better suited for that role.

 

That doesn't mean that women today are helpless without a man, but that's how we evolved and those were the roles we had.

 

Also answer me this, do you really think that women are helpless or inferior because you played video games? because if you answer is No, then you actually disagree with Anita's premise, her video series was desinged to point out that video games reinforce sexist and mysoginistic ideas about women.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Chaz

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

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.

Agreed. We could probably spend all week presenting extreme examples that support arguments that X is always childish. sexist, etc. without actually touching what the majority of what X actually is.

 

I agree (though I'd hesitate to assume they are younger, unfortunately).

Just to clarify, I don't mean that everyone who plays those games are necessarily younger(hell, I'm 21 and I can't stand them), just that they are marketed in a way the people marketing the game thinks attracts younger(14-25) males.

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.

Absolutely. Most commercials for video games are full of actiony cutscenes filled with violence. Just look at the ME3 commercials that were played during The Daily Show and The Colbert Report last year. Nothing about making hard choices, just a giant ship invading earth and a group of soldiers landing and fighting giant monsters. You could probably look at any commercial(which is what the average person will see) for any AAA game and see huge amounts of action but little else. So it doesn't even have to be the game itself is all action, just the commercial/ public perception of it.

[Malcador]

Hard to communicate a lot in as short a time frame as a TV spot.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Hard to communicate a lot in as short a time frame as a TV spot.

Well yeah, but the majority of people are not going to follow the game's development. Most people are going to see a commercial during a TV show and form their opinions based on that.

[alanschu]

 

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.

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)

Edited March 18, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

 

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.

 

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).

[alanschu]

 

Just to clarify, I don't mean that everyone who plays those games are necessarily younger(hell, I'm 21 and I can't stand them), just that they are marketed in a way the people marketing the game thinks attracts younger(14-25) males.

 

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!"

[AwesomeOcelot]

The dictionary is not sufficient, especially when it's exhaustive. It can give you synonyms but it won't tell you how the words are used differently in terms of fashion. Dictionaries have definitions for words how they would be used hundreds of years ago. There's a reason why even though frail is a synonym of weak, the definition of frail is not "see:weak" because there's actually a reason for its existence. Frail, when applied to a person, almost always means physical traits, and often also in the context of health. I can assure you that when speaking to a general audience, if you use the word frail to describe a person, the audience will think physical properties.

 

Words don't have essential meanings, they don't inherently mean anything, they are meaning carriers, symbols. Exclusive, excluding all other meanings, is not a stronger version of essential, the essence referring to the indispensable properties that serve to characterize something. A word can exclusively mean something, it can't intrinsically refer to anything, x can't intrinsically refer to y.

[Azure79]

A question to Alan. How in the world do you remember all the types of logical fallacies? 

 

I learned about them during some philosophy course in college, then promptly forgot their names and application after the final. Go college education!

 

Also I'm surprised Justin Bieber doesn't have a video game out already. 

[alanschu]

 

A question to Alan. How in the world do you remember all the types of logical fallacies?

 

Haha, I am both an archivist (although mostly just in that I have a good memory), and also a Tireless Rebutter.  As such I've come to terms with the notion that I can come across as a real ass!

 

 

I stumbled upon most of them (I don't even remember how now.  It wasn't actually University).  Some of the more common ones come up so much and I just remember them (ad hominem - though sometimes I use it too liberally, straw man, and my favourite "begging the question" and so forth), but if I recognize one and cannot remember the name I am usually able to find it with a quick google search.

 

That said, I'm not immune from accidentally using them myself, I do try to be aware.

[Chaz]

So, the Straw Man that you tried to pull on me was intentional or accidental?

[Gorth]

You could argue, that the entire discussion is based on an Association Fallacy right from the premise.

 

One market segment appears to be homophobic, misogynist chauvinistic games. One market segment seems to be predominantly aimed at a male audience. Conclusion: Male gamers are homophobic, misogynistic chauvinists.

 

Honestly, there are days when politically correct BS gets too much and I wish a pox upon those who wishes to mess with my escapist fantasies. Seriously, what is it with people who want to change the colour of curtains to match the wallpaper in my home? Get your own damn curtains and paint the walls whichever colour you like.

[alanschu]

 

So, the Straw Man that you tried to pull on me was intentional or accidental?

 

I haven't actually really been reading your longer posts at this point (see the post were I conclude we probably aren't going to have an interesting discussion about this.  My most recent response about word usage was more due to AwesomeOcelot pointing it out and I felt a need to actually defend myself since you alleged I was making up my own definitions of words), so in light of curiosity I went back and the most recent one opened with:

 

 

 

Well, thanks for at least taking back the statement that I hated you, feminism and sarkeesian just because I disagreed with you. And I don't inherintly dislike feminism, but I don't like it when it turns into sexism and misandry, I am for women righs and I am for men rights, I don't call myself a feminist because I don't think that focusing on the issues of only one gender will solve the problems of both.

 

 

At which point I concluded that there is some level of misunderstanding.  I don't know what you read, but I certainly don't feel you hate me.  The words you used were certainly not particularly flattering towards feminists, and have ascribed much of what you dislike about feminists towards Anita because she proclaims to be one.  Unless I'm mistaken you even insinuated an attack on free speech (presumably because you're concluding that as a feminist, Anita wants this trope to die for good) which I always find interesting because she's just exercising her own right to free speech by dissecting the trope the way that she does.

 

(Found the quote: As I said before, feminists are against biology, against sex and against free speech which certainly gives the impression you aren't very fond of feminists, nor the feminist movement).  I should probably take this time to state that I don't identify as a feminist either.  I'm pragmatic, and on this particular issue I agree with Anita.  I state this in case there was some sort of assumption that because I was concluding you hated feminists, you must hate me too then.

 

Disagreement is fine, and it happens all the time, and I thought I was being clear that I have no issues with people that feel her analysis is incorrect.  I guess I was not as clear as I would have liked.

 

 

As for the straw man, since I'm unaware of the point you are talking about I will have to conclude it wasn't intentional.

[alanschu]

 

You could argue, that the entire discussion is based on an Association Fallacy right from the premise.

One market segment appears to be homophobic, misogynist chauvinistic games. One market segment seems to be predominantly aimed at a male audience. Conclusion: Male gamers are homophobic, misogynistic chauvinists.

 

Hah!  Although I think it's as much those on the defensive that are guilty of this.  I'm not a fan of the way that women are depicted in games and in general agree with Anita's concerns regarding women in gaming, I get the impression that many people seem to think she has called out all games and gamers as being misogynistic and the like.  Though she actually tried to clear that up in the article. 

 

It's a bit like the anecdote I shared about using the term "Jap."  Someone pointed out to me that I was using a racial slur, and my immediate reaction in my mind was "So!?  I am not being racist with it!" and frankly disliked the internal mental gymnastics that I performed that concluded that since it's used as a racial slur, someone using the term must be a racist.  In the end, I realized I was offended about my own mind being stupid, and now no longer use the term "Jap" as a contraction for a Japanese person.

 

 

Going back to your point (and the discussion Raithe and I had):

 

The problem of course being that both sides jump to conclusions very quickly:

 

1. You dislike Anita's video?  What are you some misogynist?

2. You agree with Anita's video? What are you some sort of misandrist?

 

You can substitute in a plethora of alternative responses than the ones given but it happens an awful lot.  Though it's not really prevalent in Anita's video.  She does, however, make the disparaging remark about "regressive crap" with Double Dragon.  (As an aside, I wonder if she feels the situation has improved, since one can only regress if some level of progression has occurred).

[Gorth]

Who says I have to be either or?

 

I can enjoy being a misogynist in a video game without going around and insulting the opposite sex once I put the keyboard aside. I love playing Carmageddon, but I never even considered running over that baby stroller on the sidewalk the last time I drove past one (didn't even think '10 points' or whatever).

 

She may or may not have a point, but she is doing it all wrong (to use gamer terminology), when borders between fiction and reality starts getting blurred.