Anita Sarkeesian/Tropes and Women in Gaming

[alanschu]

 

Enterainment doesn't make people violent or sexist ort whatever. That is bull. Violence, and sexism have existed well before modern forms of entertainment. Video games weren't around during the world wars, afterall.

 

HAHA I had to reply to this, simply to point out how much it made me laugh

[alanschu]

 

And for some reason I have feeling that some people misunderstand Sarkeesian's projects point and focus which was to study if and how popular tropes about women present themselves in games and if/how presentation of this tropes are changed in games during evolution of gaming industry. Project focus is not criticize game/men/male gamers/gaming industry and Sarkeesian didn't do any criticising of them on this video.

 

That's a good point.  In fact, when she references the Double Dragon game and states "regresssive crap" there's an implicit assumption that some level of progress has been taken.  I am curious what her follow up will be.  She talks about exploring the reversal, which is probably going to come under some level of criticism.  Which I think is also symptomatic of the problem.

 

Like the poster on the BSN that dismissed my suggestion that if we were to feature rape in DA3, we should have it happen to a male character.  It was dismissed on the notion of "It'd just come across as feminist commentary and it wouldn't work."  He's probably correct (at this point, simply swapping Peach and Mario is going to generate some level of criticism on the grounds that it's only done for some less than preferable reason).  There was still some level of scorn for the father that flipped Pauline and Jumpman in Donkey Kong (although it didn't seem to come up too much in the brief examination I saw).  But I just found it interesting that for this poster, the only depiction of rape he'd consider appropriate for the game is the sexual assault of a woman.

 

We'd need to get to a point where, if the roles are reversed, no one would blink an eye and it wouldn't be newsworthy.

[HoonDing]

She likely didn't mention that in the classic Karateka, you would get killed by the damsel in distress in the end if you approached her in combat stance.

 

Not to mention in Double Dragon it's two guys going after the damsel in distress. Though I usually sucked that much in the game that I always died before the final boss and the girl ended up with only one guy. Too sexist, I guess.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Drudanae

[alanschu]

She likely didn't mention that in the classic Karateka, you would get killed by the damsel in distress in the end if you approached her in combat stance.

 

HAHAHA.

 

Although that doesn't exactly paint Mariko in a positive light XD

Edited March 19, 2013 by alanschu

[alanschu]

 

Not to mention in Double Dragon it's two guys going after the damsel in distress. Though I usually sucked that much in the game that I always died before the final boss and the girl ended up with only one guy. Too sexist, I guess.

 

In the arcade version, once the final boss is defeated Billy and Jimmy fight each other for the girl.

[HoonDing]

Is there a name for the trope where two guys fight over the same girl and the girl goes for the (usually hurt) loser?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Eh, not too much point in getting bogged down with it IMO

 

I love how she and her supporters act as if it has already been proven that the tropes cause real harm for women, when there is no evidence at all. I guess reason goes out the window.

 

Also what do you suggest we do? we already have an ESRB. are we going to forbid developers and artist from creating sexy characters? The hell with free spech, go radical feminism!

 

I already pointed you to a study about how exposure to certain exemplars does implicitly change one's attitudes towards minorities. It's not much of a stretch that this might be true about unflattering tropes and misogyny (which, by the way, in feminist circles, does NOT equal explicit hatred against women).

 

I suggest we do nothing about it; shaming people into changing their attitudes does not work, and the resulting screaming match achieves nothing beside the righteous anger of 'fighting for the Good Cause' in both sides, which just furthers the hostility. But we should consume more content created by women; and if a developer team with women at key positions offers us to create a good game - not a feminist game, a good game, which doesn't want to preach, just tell us a story from women's perspective -, then we should throw some money at them.

[Elerond]

Is there a name for the trope where two guys fight over the same girl and the girl goes for the (usually hurt) loser?

 

Yes, C.o.c.k Fight

 

stupid censorship

Edited March 19, 2013 by Elerond

[Chaz]

HAHA I had to reply to this, simply to point out how much it made me laugh

 

You could have replied to provide evidence to support your claim, or disprove his, but I guess we can all laugh together

 

I already pointed you to a study about how exposure to certain exemplars

does implicitly change one's attitudes towards minorities. It's not

much of a stretch that this might be true about unflattering tropes and

misogyny (which, by the way, in feminist circles, does NOT equal

explicit hatred against women).

 

This may sound shocking but I don't think I'm actually qualified to peer review this study, but if the scientific community reviews it and determines the results are valid we can talk about that for sure. Also, I don't want to be the one moving the goal posts, but I don't think a single study is enough, in the case of gun violence there have been many studies to determine if video games can cause violence, and the most they were able to prove is that you may become more agressive, the same way playing a competitive sport makes you agressive, but not necessarily violent.

 

Look, if you think there is a problem, I don't think there is, but if you think there is a problem, vote with your wallet, if you think we live in a patriarchy go ahead and vote more women into positions of power, personally I think we are supposed to vote for politicians because you agree with their policies and not because of their gender, same with video games, I buy video games because they are fun , I don't care for the gender of the developers.

 

Also, if you want to fight this supposed misogyny* in video games then I advice you don't buy any games where a woman needs you're help because you are turning her into a damsel, and don't buy games where women are strong and capable either because they are just "pretending to be men" like sarkeesian said in her thesis, also don't  you dare buy any games where women have big breasts or wear revealing outfits, because that's just sexist.

 

 

*NOTE: it doesn't exist

Edited March 19, 2013 by Chaz

[Amentep]

 

 

Anyways, doesn't sexualization and idealization cross over? I mean almost every time an empowered confident woman is portrayed in fiction, they happen to be quite attractive. Hell men in fiction are generally closer to Ryan Gosling than some steroid swallowing hulk, so it isn't like men aren't sexualized at all.

 

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.

 

 

As I recall there's also a bit of cultural influence (based on Isabella's dialogue with the PC and with the other NPCs) that implies a different cultural norm where she's form in regards to sex which I think helps flesh the character out a bit from being just a "sexpot" (and I say that as someone who didn't really like the character all that much).

 

Tomb Raider 2 was the game that turned me off the series - but more because of the move away from exploration / puzzle solving and into shooting badguys all over the place. The end bit was pretty stupid fan-service, though.

 

As to the main topic, I'm kind of surprised - and I admit a bit confused - that Ms. Sarkeesian and her work gets the interest (pro/negative) that it does for essentially doing the same kind of things that people do in media studies fields all the time.

[Amentep]

Just because a character is a damsel in distress, doesn't mean the character needs to be passive like Princess Peach. or Princess Daphne.

 

Princess Zelda and the Princess from Mechner's Prince of Persia games both still helped out the main character in their own way.

 

One question that comes up from a narrative sense to my mind on this argument is, essentially, whether the character is a character at all or a macguffin.

 

I'd argue in very early games the "kidnapped" characters were really macguffins to motivate the gameplay and not really characters per-se. This would be true of whether the character was a girl (Mario's girlfriend in DONKEY KONG) or a guy (Donkey Kong himself in Donkey Kong Jr.).  In that sense they don't exist as characters and while I understand that some people see that as the problem, I think its actually applying the wrong standards of story to the game and finding it naturally wanting. 

 

In essence, I'm not sure narrative or character development is considered a hallmark of early video games to the point that its worth pointing out narrative or character shortcomings. The complaints hold more weight, in my mind, in modern gaming where there is room to develop narrative and character and creating characters to be macguffins for the player to be unnecessary for the most part.

[AwesomeOcelot]

And for some reason I have feeling that some people misunderstand Sarkeesian's projects point and focus which was to study if and how popular tropes about women present themselves in games and if/how presentation of this tropes are changed in games during evolution of gaming industry. Project focus is not criticize game/men/male gamers/gaming industry and Sarkeesian didn't do any criticising of them on this video.

I think it's criticism by implication, given her known opinions about tropes and their effect on society, she has an audience that will come to conclusions to that end without her needing to spell it out. Wasn't it called "tropes vs women"? I find it a bit farcical for anyone to suggest that this isn't criticism of the games industry. She mentions that the damsel in distress trope was an intentional depiction of women as naturally weak in the video.

 

That analysis, that the knight-errant romance is designed to paint women as naturally weak is incredibly stupid on multiple counts. The men of the time writing these romances believed women were weak, as did society, they wouldn't need to go to the trouble of making propaganda to this effect, they were just writing from their experience. Women of the period, especially titled ones such as princesses, were living under strict gender roles, they would not be able to defend themselves.

 

She also criticizes Double Dragon as regressive crap, she apparently has a problem with a stomach punch and showing "panties". She has a problem with sexuality in games, as can be seen by her video on Bayonetta, although she doesn't explain why she has a problem with it, it comes off as just simply prudish. She hardly ever states criticism, it's more by tone, sarcasm, and implication that she communicates she has a problem with something.

[Spider]

I'll make a reversal on my previous post, but her not taking a stance on camera is part of what I've come to like about the video now that I've processed it a bit (and read more comments).

 

It's true, she most likely things these tropes are bad, as does her base audience. However, she isn't presenting it as such, so the viewers get to form their own opinions whether or not they think it's a bad thing or not. Like others have said, it plays much more like a research thesis than an opinion piece, and that was probably the best way she could have taken this.

 

Regardless of which, the fact that a forum like this have ten pages of (mostly) civil discussion of the topic means her video had it's intended effect. We're talking and (more importantly) thinking about these issues. We may not agree the excessive usage of the DiD-trope is a problem, but having to articulate why you feel that way is still a good thing.

[mkreku]

Came for boobs. Left disappointed.

[Amentep]

She hardly ever states criticism, it's more by tone, sarcasm, and implication that she communicates she has a problem with something.

 

Maybe its just me, but that doesn't seem to be out of the norm. Modern popular critical thought seems to boil down to snark and clever one-liners.

[Orogun01]

 

She hardly ever states criticism, it's more by tone, sarcasm, and implication that she communicates she has a problem with something.

 

Maybe its just me, but that doesn't seem to be out of the norm. Modern popular critical thought seems to boil down to snark and clever one-liners.

The sad part is that discourse today is less about presenting ideas with rhetoric and more about one liners, catchy catchphrases and overall just being an ass. 

[Chaz]

As to the main topic, I'm kind of surprised - and I admit a bit confused

- that Ms. Sarkeesian and her work gets the interest (pro/negative)

that it does for essentially doing the same kind of things that people

do in media studies fields all the time.

 

If you think this is some sort of study to discover if video games are misogynistic you'll be disappointed, she already declared that video games were misogynistic in her kickstarter video, now she is laying down only the evidence that supports her case, like all her videos, this one is terribly one sided.

 

Regardless of which, the fact that a forum like this have ten pages of

(mostly) civil discussion of the topic means her video had it's intended

effect. We're talking and (more importantly) thinking about these

issues. We may not agree the excessive usage of the DiD-trope is a

problem, but having to articulate why you feel that way is still a good

thing.

 

I agree that some people may be discussing if rescuing peach has made them sexists or misogynists, I see it more as a discussion of how crazy radical feminism is, hating sexuality, hating anything that's marketed for boys, hating that many games were just teenager fantasies (When many of us were teenegers or kids when those game came out) beign pro-censorship and restricting free-spech.

 

Also I think it's very sad how disingenuous some of her supporters can be, to avoid losing an argument one admited that he is more likely to hate women and now see them as inferior just because they played video games.

 

Or when I show you guys evidence that what she is saying goes against biology I was automatically dismissed "oh she is not talking about physical strenght, she is talking about strenght of character" with many reasonable people such evidence would be a deal breaker, not in this case.

 

Recently I pointed out how she contradicted her own thesis and it totally went over people's head. Let's be honest here, you don't want an intellectual discussion, you presented no evidence to support your case and ignored anything that might prove that you are wrong.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Chaz

[alanschu]

 

The sad part is that discourse today is less about presenting ideas with rhetoric and more about one liners, catchy catchphrases and overall just being an ass.

 

I agree rhetoric is missing.  I suspect it's mostly a case of, with the internet, it can be the soapbox for the whole world.  And as touched on in this thread a few times already, it's the extreme views that are overrepresented, and people have a tendency to paint the whole picture with these extreme views.

 

Admittedly politics was much less on the mind when I was younger, but it certainly seems much more jaded and polarized than it was.  Republicans are gun loving tea partiers that hate women and only care about rich white men, while Democrats are basically full on communists, for example.

 

I'm sure people thought this in the past, it was just more difficult for it to be communicated for all to see.

[Gorth]

As I recall there's also a bit of cultural influence (based on Isabella's dialogue with the PC and with the other NPCs) that implies a different cultural norm where she's form in regards to sex which I think helps flesh the character out a bit from being just a "sexpot" (and I say that as someone who didn't really like the character all that much).

Isabella and Zevran were both Antivan, weren't they? I'm going to be very disappointed if DA3 doesn't take place in Antiva

[alanschu]

Isabela is Rivaini (it's Varric's pet name for her).

[Gorth]

Damn, so much for my fuzzy memory (I blame old age) >_

[Oner]

 

 

She hardly ever states criticism, it's more by tone, sarcasm, and implication that she communicates she has a problem with something.

 

Maybe its just me, but that doesn't seem to be out of the norm. Modern popular critical thought seems to boil down to snark and clever one-liners.

The sad part is that discourse today is less about presenting ideas with rhetoric and more about one liners, catchy catchphrases and overall just being an ass. 

We had rhetoric classes at school. One lesson I remember is to leave your strongest argument for last, to make the biggest impact.

In practice? Your audience will stop listening at the part they think is wrong or the stupidest and call you out on it. That was my experience, at least.

No wonder rhetoric died. :D

[alanschu]

I was always taught to lead with your second strongest argument to help counter that haha.

 

Though my time on forums is much closer to stream of consciousness where I just respond point by point in the order that it's read (although sometimes I bounce around, and those are the conversations where I suddenly have sentences that

 

 

But yeah, it's not uncommon for someone to latch on to a single point.  In other cases one may just end up glossing over posts as well.  I find myself doing this more and more if I am in a discussion I think isn't destined to be all that productive.  Alas the days of alanschu the tireless rebutter seem to be in the past hahaha.

[TrashMan]

Ahh...this thread again.

 

I am personally not impressed at all with the show or Sarkeesian. Can you believe I got banned from another forum becuse I said I didn't like the show? Apparently it's racism if you think her money-grabbing was unnecessary and...immoral?

 

"HAY! I make YouTube videos. Gime money so I can make more Youtube videos."

 

Hey, you know what's funny? On that other forum, some poeple actually claimed that using the Damsel in Distress trope is brainwashing/conditioning people to look at women as inferior.

You know..kinda like games condition us to be bloodthirsty killers.

[alanschu]

 

Can you believe I got banned from another forum becuse I said I didn't like the show? Apparently it's racism if you think her money-grabbing was unnecessary and...immoral?

 

"HAY! I make YouTube videos. Gime money so I can make more Youtube videos."

 

Depending on the forum and your apparent reasoning for not liking what she's doing, I can believe it (since it depends on how you said it).  Unnecessary and immoral though?  Seems a bit extreme.  She asked for funding to do a project.  You should see what goes on in Universities across the world if you think that that is bad.

 

 

 

Hey, you know what's funny? On that other forum, some poeple actually claimed that using the Damsel in Distress trope is brainwashing/conditioning people to look at women as inferior.

 

The idea that media (not just games) perpetuating stereotypes as having negative effects isn't really new.  Damsel in Distress gets critiqued across the boards.  Anita is just looking at it in games for this video (and her second one).