Video Tropes vs. Women in Videogames [Archive]

AC9breaker

Jun 15, 2012, 06:55 PM

Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist pop culture critic who produces an ongoing web series of video commentaries from a feminist/fangirl perspective at FeministFrequency.com. She uses her web show to explore representations of race, gender, sexuality, class and ability in popular culture.

She is doing a webseries where she will explore, analyze and deconstruct some of the most common tropes and stereotypes of female characters in games. The series will highlight the larger recurring patterns and conventions used within the gaming industry rather than just focusing on the worst offenders.

I honestly don't care at all about feminism and their views and goals however my biggest motivation for wanting to spread her videos and support for her project is because of some of the dumb trolling shit (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games/posts/242547) she's been receiving because of her project. Troll the trolls. I mean frankly if you find her message that much of a slight to your mental processes then just ignore her. No need to make the vicious attacks that they have been doing on her.

Anyway, check it out and give her the support if your interested. At the very least, she's easy on the eyes.

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/566429325/tropes-vs-women-in-video-games

BIG OLAF

Jun 15, 2012, 07:02 PM

I, personally, am not into all that bullshit when it comes to 'feminism', or any other 'sect' that's fights for right(s) that the group in question already has. It more or less just becomes an attempted power-grab, or whining for attention when you get to the core of it all.

But, trolling and/or being unpleasant with someone because you disagree with them is uncalled for. However, this is the internet, and that being said, people going above and beyond the call of duty to be vile wretches to others isn't unheard of.

So, I won't be donating (even though it makes little difference considering she's already exploded past her mark).

NoiseHERO

Jun 15, 2012, 07:03 PM

When writing I try to keep a balance between my race and genders and their roles.

Then sometimes I feel like I failed anyway.

In pop culture they just outright do it on purpose. D:

She's screwed. D:

Palle

Jun 15, 2012, 09:33 PM

As the parent of a teenaged girl, I've had to reckon with this a little bit. Mainly, I call the bullshit as I see it, so she's known for a long time how women can be manipulated in terms of things like gender role or body image. She also knows it is by no means limited to the subjugation of women.

There have been a couple of occasions where she wants this game or that manga and I've had to tell her to buy it on her own time with her own money if she wants it that badly. I cannot be the sponsor of that sort of content.

For all the stereotyping and whatnot that goes on, it doesn't seem to have affected her too much; her favorite game is Yume Nikki.

:-o

NoiseHERO

Jun 15, 2012, 10:16 PM

Off-Topic...

People are making kickstarters for EVERYTHING.

Leviathan

Jun 16, 2012, 01:23 AM

.Rusty.

Jun 16, 2012, 05:34 AM

She raised so much money she is doing stuff about how women get treated in online games as well now.That set of videos is going to be depressingly easy to write for.

CelestialBlade

Jun 16, 2012, 08:15 AM

The people trolling her are some lowly scum, I've seen a few of her videos and they do make some pretty valid points (Hunger Games white-washing, straw feminist trope, toy ads, etc) but this is the internet and that's what happens when people with too much time on their hands.
Pretty much this. As for her videos themselves, all I have to say is it's what happens when the target audience for many games/movies are predominantly male, and we haven't entirely shaken off the old patriarchal mindset in many countries.

True feminists just want equality, don't let the extremists give it a bad name.

Kent

Jun 17, 2012, 02:04 PM

True feminists just want equality, don't let the extremists give it a bad name.
I've always understood it this way, that it's about equality rather than taking the reigns.

But I've also always wondered why, if they strive for equality, do they stick with a name whose structure and terminology implies that they want to be in power? You know, instead of something like "equalism."

I mean, having some movement called "feminism" implies that what it's going against is "masculism," and therefore the perception that men are empowered and women are not... Meaning the ultimate goal would be implied to have the tables turned, rather than the ideal of making everyone equal.

This is also related to why I have a problem with outspoken feminists or other supposedly-equality-seeking groups: They assume that because I am an apparently-white, straight male that I am somehow out to subjugate them and sabotage their cause... Because I'm saying we should be on equal grounds, instead of telling them that others are superior to me while mid-kowtow.

Peejay

Jun 17, 2012, 03:42 PM

If you want to cover gender issues, there's going to be something for ableism, too. That's my two cents on it. If girls get to make up a show about being abused, so should the people who are disabled, and it'd be a lot easier to do then.

I just dislike hearing about these since I actually am disabled and have dealt with some crap at the hand of, well, the extremists.

I can name on such extremist on the forum. :v

NoiseHERO

Jun 17, 2012, 04:09 PM

I've always understood it this way, that it's about equality rather than taking the reigns.

But I've also always wondered why, if they strive for equality, do they stick with a name whose structure and terminology implies that they want to be in power? You know, instead of something like "equalism."

I mean, having some movement called "feminism" implies that what it's going against is "masculism," and therefore the perception that men are empowered and women are not... Meaning the ultimate goal would be implied to have the tables turned, rather than the ideal of making everyone equal.

This is also related to why I have a problem with outspoken feminists or other supposedly-equality-seeking groups: They assume that because I am an apparently-white, straight male that I am somehow out to subjugate them and sabotage their cause... Because I'm saying we should be on equal grounds, instead of telling them that others are superior to me while mid-kowtow.

"My last boyfriend was a scumbag! I hate men now! I'm a feminist! Just the way you breath pisses me off because you're a male in my line of vision! the way you said hello to that girl was racist! Submit and apologize and give her half of your money!

...

...

...

Please come to my book club meetings... ._."

Angelo

Jun 17, 2012, 05:08 PM

Ah, christ.

Who let this garbage leak over from NeoGAF? Though I'm sure if AllisonW still posted here she'd be sporting a mighty chubby.

Leviathan

Jun 17, 2012, 05:22 PM

Pro-Tip: If you even know a damn thing about modern feminism (not what media has taught and portrayed for years, the media loves to use a straw feminist [extreme ones like radfems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism)] or any outlier of a movement to bring down the movement a peg), you would realize that 1.) It covers ableism. 2.) It is not only for females, but for everyone (the word "egalitarianism" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue) 3.) covers deep issues, (racism within feminism as it was the basis of the feminism ideology) not only just for women (women stay in the kitchen, stay at home because you are a flower, et al.) but men as well. (Men don't always have to be strong and stone faced, hell they can be stay at home dads too total shocker).

That in mind, it is always a grand idea to keep an open mind about issues, and not to write them off based on antiquated sentiments.

NoiseHERO

Jun 17, 2012, 05:46 PM

It doesn't sound like anyone here has any REAL problems with understanding the idea of feminism though. D:

Though I didn't know race issues went under feminism...

From my ignorant point of view, though, it doesn't really seem to stand out much, to make much of a change...

I couldn't imagine people outside of Nickelodeon's studios marching in circles with picket signs to make their shows less shallow and make more shows about a middle eastern fat girl that's trying to fight crime. Instead of shows about trendy rich kids having underage un-protected sex and doing drugs before they're even old enough to driv- D:

Wait the former sounds EXACTLY like something Nickelodeon would make...

Angelo

Jun 17, 2012, 05:58 PM

I completely understand contemporary feminism, in fact it's one of the few political movements I spend quite a bit of my time investigating. I also understand that it's primarily a business rooted in dismantlement to result in capital.

I can't really be placated with the generic sentiment that "It's nothing like radical feminism", I understand that, in fact it's actually exponentially more dangerous than radical feminism because while they both reap the same results, contemporary feminism gives the same result while seeping itself quietly into the cracks of society until it's viewed as convention.

Pre-radical feminism, i.e. pre-Gloria Steinem-branded feminism, or the suffragette movement was actually based on the idea of equal rights and equal opportunity. However, contemporary feminism is not based on equal opportunity, it's based on equal outcome, which cannot occur in entities that evolved over tens of thousands of years without impeding on the rights of others, and 'rigging the game' so to speak.

Contemporary feminism in raw statistics has brought a significant rise in the depression, medication, disorder diagnosis (bi-polar disorder as a prime example), and general dysfunction to the female population in the past 30 years. The well-being of men has remained generally stagnant, if not slightly downhill, but not in a significant way as opposed to their female counterparts.

The problem with the west is that we are obsessed with the idea of instant-gratification with little to no regard of any implications and foresight. It's a philosophy that I take to heart, and to be honest it's sort of the cornerstone of who I am as a person. Contemporary feminism is a paragon of instant-gratification with no thought or regard of foresight, implications, human evolution, biology, the collective nature of the human race, and the well-being of all social-classes. It's a business that has reaped profit by exploiting the fundamental differences between the genders so that more members of the household could be taxed and influenced. The roots aren't hidden, they're available at any public library. When the Rockefellers full on start a movement (this movement) with ruthless tenacity, you know it can't be because they have what's best for our well-being in mind.

We're living 'the dream' now as a result. Because the bigwigs had the foresight we lacked. If you for one second thing that the men pulling the strings in the west adhere to these propagated philosophies of supposed liberties, to their concept of 'good and evil' pumped out by Hollywood, music, and carefully crafted sub-cultures to their offerings of 'good-will'... then you are sadly mistaken. I'm not saying this is all the fault of contemporary feminism, though it is a major factor. 'The dream' has been realized, their dream, as the exploitation of our weaknesses and desperation has exalted them to an all-time high in the financial gap, with the smallest percent now absorbing a record high in terms of capital. This is because they had foresight and we had desperation, they crafted and we obeyed. No we sit here armed with things like the 'Occupy' movement, which understands the problem, but does not fully understand the implications because our new code of honor has been force fed to us to a point where we can no longer tell what feelings of passion have arisen from our collective nature as human beings and what has been manufactured through our 'instant gratification' upbringing. This is their dream, GG guys, keep preaching their book.

Leviathan

Jun 17, 2012, 05:58 PM

It doesn't sound like anyone here has any REAL problems with understanding the idea of feminism though. D:

A few people made some sweeping generalization and wrote off feminism as a whole without putting much thought/effort into it. I mean I can see how one can write it off (some feminists don't work toward race equality/ LGBTQ*/ and handicapped people and yes those are all valid points to write off feminism, but not because it's baww women fightan over rights they have and a feminist yelled at me is not a valid criticism.

Though I didn't know race issues went under feminism...

/Points to statement above.

From my ignorant point of view, though, it doesn't really seem to stand out much, to make much of a change...

I couldn't imagine people outside of Nickelodeon's studios marching in circles with picket signs to make their shows less shallow and make more shows about a middle eastern fat girl that's trying to fight crime. Instead of shows about trendy rich kids having underage un-protected sex and doing drugs before they're even old enough to driv- D:

Feminism has many branches, and some strive for other things as they see important so it's unorganized when it comes to tackling an issue. There are marxist feminist, socialist feminist, lipstick feminists, proto, religious, and so many more types of feminists.

Wait the former sounds EXACTLY like something Nickelodeon would make...

Oh you mean Degrassi? :-P

Peejay

Jun 17, 2012, 06:03 PM

modern feminism.

Is still feminism by a strict definition. Adding the word modern doesn't mean much. There's another word for it, but I can't exactly think of it at the moment. If it's that supposedly broad, you're not feminist, you're arguing for the sake of human rights in general, really.

Leviathan

Jun 17, 2012, 06:10 PM

Is still feminism by a strict definition. Adding the word modern doesn't mean much.

It does. First wave feminism only focused on a specific group; white, middle class, cisgender women who, at the time had the same rights as African-Americans in the 1960s. They did not want to be treated in the same vein and as a result first wave feminism began.

From then on, the other waves became more inclusive, it's not all the way inclusive and fringe groups have emerged thus making it harder to have a just one movement as a whole.

There's another word for it, but I can't exactly think of it at the moment. If it's that supposedly broad, you're not feminist, you're arguing for the sake of human rights in general, really.

You mean egalitarianism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism) I actually mentioned it in the post you quoted this post from.

BIG OLAF

Jun 17, 2012, 06:36 PM

This topic is going to turn into a ticking time bomb, I think.

Anyway, I don't label myself with any 'group.' I'm not for feminism, I'm not for black rights, I'm not for any specific ideology. I just believe that people shouldn't be unfair or generally dickish to others based on their sex, race, creed, or beliefs. That's all anyone needs to be. Adding on more to that is stupid and pointless to me.

Angelo

Jun 17, 2012, 06:43 PM

I just believe that people shouldn't be unfair or generally dickish to others based on their sex, race, creed, or beliefs. That's all anyone needs to be. Adding on more to that is stupid and pointless to me.

This.

In fact you don't even have to genuinely respect everyone; respect is earned. You just have to be courteous and not an unwarranted dickhead.

NoiseHERO

Jun 17, 2012, 06:57 PM

^ + ^ ^

Those are my general conclusion. But it COULD be necessary to "fight" to get people to have some common sense. And in general it IS still relevant in the media, if anything that's the only place I still see sexism relevant, outside of personal conflict.

Maybe one day I'll have some kind of job, and my boss will be talking to a female co-worker. and he'll be all "HAY BRENDA, WHY DON'T YOUR SHAKE YOUR TITTIES AROUND A LIL BIT AND BAKE US ALL SOME COOKIES." And I'll be all "HAY, NOT COOL BRO, I'M A FEMINIST AND I DON'T STAND FOR THAT SHIT!"

And get fired in the name of equality. Or just look like I have nice-guy syndrome and get rejected by Brenda without even asking her out, iono.

Angelo

Jun 17, 2012, 07:14 PM

Oh, Rock.

Such a spitfire.

Vintasticvin

Jun 17, 2012, 09:23 PM

.Rusty.

Jun 18, 2012, 04:46 AM

Contemporary feminism in raw statistics has brought a significant rise in the depression, medication, disorder diagnosis (bi-polar disorder as a prime example), and general dysfunction to the female population in the past 30 years. The well-being of men has remained generally stagnant, if not slightly downhill, but not in a significant way as opposed to their female counterparts.

ok ignoring the biotruths, conspiracy theory and rant about instant-gratification.
How long did you think about this part? You can just easily spin it as more women realizeing that the way they feel is not normal and seeking out help to fix there head.

Oh and guys the feminism only cares about women argument is kinda weak considering the women makeing these videos also talks race, gender sexuality class and ability in popular culture.

She just calls her self a feminist because she mostly deals with stuff that you know affects females.

Outrider

Jun 18, 2012, 11:38 AM

Wow, I feel like I'm just posting these comics left and right these days.

http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/2011-12-02-sexy.png (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/)

http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/2011-12-05-sphincterclench.png (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/sphincterclench/)

http://www.shortpacked.com/comics/2012-02-14-issuewithgender.png (http://www.shortpacked.com/2012/comic/book-13/07-this-continues-to-be-so-babies/issuewithgender/)

Source: Shortpacked.com (http://www.shortpacked.com)

Basically, women deserve to be on equal footing with men; no ifs, ands, or buts. Unfortunately, when somebody suggest that, some guys get this panicked idea in their head that they are suddenly going to be disadvantaged by such a change and that they have to defend the advantage they have enjoyed for their entire life.

Gentlemen: Don't do this. Do you have to put yourself in a woman's position in order to feel empathy? Then do that. Do not assume that these aren't real issues as that is demonstrably false.

If you're looking to take away something from this:

1.) Treat everybody with equal respect.
2.) Be a little more self-aware of your actions (especially if you're talking from a place of advantage).
3.) Don't be a dick.

I'm just putting extra emphasis on that last one.

BIG OLAF

Jun 18, 2012, 11:41 AM

3.) Don't be a dick.

I'm just putting extra emphasis on that last one.

This one is really the only one you have to pay attention to. If you follow this one, the other two come all-inclusive in the package, really.

Also, I have yet to experience this "advantage" I'm supposed to have being a male. Where do I cash in my "male advantage" points? I'd like to use some.

Angelo

Jun 18, 2012, 12:21 PM

Xaeris

Jun 18, 2012, 12:24 PM

Outrider

Jun 18, 2012, 12:35 PM

That actually sums up my thoughts on Shortpacked! very well. It's an amusing way to kill thirtyish seconds when it's focusing on its story or humor, but it's just downright cringeworthy with its strawmans when it's up on soapbox. It makes me want to take the opposing side just out of sheer spite.

Man, I wish those were strawmen. These are actual arguments that people use.

I literally just saw somebody make that argument in the first comic about idealized men and women yesterday.

The third comic about telling people that they should stop talking about gender issues because they're unimportant or just a niche issue? This very thread.

(The second comic is mostly just for the funny, since there's no real argument there.)

It's only a strawman argument when their argument is being mischaracterized to serve your own argument. When they're representing the actual arguments that people use everyday (sometimes quoting them word for word, as the author sometimes does in Shortpacked), it makes it a little more relevant.

Xaeris

Jun 18, 2012, 12:43 PM

NoiseHERO

Jun 18, 2012, 12:45 PM

This very thread.

Don't look at me! I just said I don't see it a lot outside of the media. D:

If anything, in real life... I'm always seeing women in power calling the shots. Not that it makes much a difference to me since I have a single parent mother. @_@

Leviathan

Jun 18, 2012, 01:28 PM

BIG OLAF

Jun 18, 2012, 01:33 PM

those who are in a position of power and privilege (hey guys/bros/dudes/men [boys need not apply])

Where do I cash in my "male advantage" points? I'd like to use some.

Like no, really. Can I do it at the local City Hall? Or, like...?

NoiseHERO

Jun 18, 2012, 02:04 PM

ITT: Lack of reading comprehension, backpedaling, and "but I'm not like that!" statements.

The comic and commentary Outrider posted is on point. It also reminds me that those who are in a position of power and privilege (hey guys/bros/dudes/men [boys need not apply]) must also help those who are not in the same position and are given equal footing.

I'm just backpedaling to clarify that "I'm not like that!" because it sounds like I'm possibly related and no one's telling me directly! D:

Like someone has to be the badguy, and it's usually me! But NOT THIS TIME! DON'T VILLIANIZE ME I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG! D8

/runs away crying

Outrider

Jun 18, 2012, 02:10 PM

Look at the antagonist in the third panel. You see how his mouth is flapping open while Amber's is closed and composed? You see how his eyebrows are arched and incensed while Amber's are leveled and composed? While there may be people who make an argument that resembles that guy's, I am truly truly loathe to believe that anyone purposefully presents themselves as being so childish while making it.

For ffs, in the last panel, he literally has his hands over his ears. No one does this in real life.

Well, considering the arguments being made aren't particularly composed or mature (again, these are real arguments that are used often and repeatedly), I don't really have much of a problem with it.

If this was a formal debate I guess it would be one thing, but it's a comedy strip. Sometimes you have to throw sexism under the bus for a gag and I can't say that I'm terribly concerned about that.

Like no, really. Can I do it at the local City Hall? Or, like...?

Well, for starters you're likely to make more money than a women in your same position would make. The threat of being sexually assaulted is significantly lower. You don't have the federal government constantly debating whether or not your have control over the medication and procedures you can use solely because there is religious opposition to that idea. In general, we live in a culture that views men as 'the norm', so that works out well for you in lots of different ways.

The concept of advantage isn't suggesting that people in an advantageous role can't have a tough time. The point is that there is a systemic level of advantage for that group as a whole built into the culture and society.

FOODFOOD

Jun 18, 2012, 02:32 PM

I wasn't aware this person existed. *Hits "Follow" on Twitter*

It's great that she's doing this. As someone that studied Sociology in college, this whole thing is very interesting.

Leviathan

Jun 18, 2012, 02:34 PM

Like no, really. Can I do it at the local City Hall? Or, like...?

This article sums it up.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

Xaeris

Jun 18, 2012, 02:53 PM

Well, considering the arguments being made aren't particularly composed or mature (again, these are real arguments that are used often and repeatedly), I don't really have much of a problem with it.

If this was a formal debate I guess it would be one thing, but it's a comedy strip. Sometimes you have to throw sexism under the bus for a gag and I can't say that I'm terribly concerned about that.

You keep calling them real arguments. I let it slide the first time, but now I have to press. Where, where have you ever seen a conversation anything like what goes on in the third comic take place? "You've already voiced your opinions, now you have to shut up forever!" "They're not important unless they affect me!" This is not genuine dialogue. This is something out of a cartoon. There will certainly be men present opposition when the issue of gender disparities and sexism in geek culture arise, but their arguments will not take such a rudimentary and transparent form.

But that aside for a moment, let's say those are arguments that some neckbeards use. Okay. I've seen feminists argue that any act of intercourse not initiated by a woman is rape among other insane nonsense. So would it be all right for me to use those nutters as a stand in for feminists in a work of fiction? Hell, I think that trope even has a name. Something feminist...starch feminist...stock feminist...oh yes, straw feminist. It's generally regarded as dumb, and shouldn't be regarded as any less dumb when applied to something we don't like.

I don't find this type of "humor" funny at all. It's preaching, and worse, it's lazy. As much as we would like to live in a just universe where our enemies are ugly, stupid and slow, we live in reality, where our enemies are often quite adept at employing logic and wordplay to push a malicious agenda. The best humor doesn't reject reality and substitute its own. Good humor takes reality and finds a way to mock the ever loving **** out of it no matter how bleak it is. See: satire.

Leviathan

Jun 18, 2012, 03:12 PM

Where, where have you ever seen a conversation anything like what goes on in the third comic take place?

All. The. Time.

Let's use politics as an example!

If you have tuned in to watch the U.S. news at any point in the last year/month(s)/week you would know that women are being censored for just about anything.

The spike in anti-abortion bills? A group of representative women were prohibited from speaking in the Michigan House regarding the ultra-restrictive anti-abortion bill.

http://www.ourmidland.com/news/article_3f69d6f4-b958-11e1-812c-0019bb2963f4.html

"You've already voiced your opinions, now you have to shut up forever!" "They're not important unless they affect me!" This is not genuine dialogue.

It's not but it still happens.

Again, another political situation:

Oklahoma creates a personhood bill defining that conception is when life begins.
State senator Johnson creates a bill lampooning the personhood bill. Then this happens:

[spoiler-box]http://i49.tinypic.com/f0rme1.png[/spoiler-box]

This is something out of a cartoon. There will certainly be men present opposition when the issue of gender disparities and sexism in geek culture arise, but their arguments will not take such a rudimentary and transparent form.

But they do! And that's how this comes full circle with the beginning of this thread and how that lady wants to make a video exposing said things and has now received backlash on it.

Xaeris

Jun 18, 2012, 03:28 PM

All. The. Time.

Let's use politics as an example!

I didn't want to quote the entire thing and take up space. I don't think you quite understand where I'm coming from. My argument isn't that these things aren't the sentiment behind the arguments. My argument is that these arguments will never be put so plainly and in such terms so unflattering to the people making them.

Let's look at that Daily Show picture you posted to help me clarify. Yes, it's certainly disgusting how oblivious the interviewee was to how analogous the bill he was protesting was to the one he's advocating. But he never explicitly said anything as infantile as "it's not important unless it affects me," and especially not while flailing his arms. People, generally, are not that honest with themselves. What allows him to advocate one bill and denounce the other is a complicated cognitive dissonance that's likely rooted in groupthink and heavy rationalizations, all of which he could likely explain in a manner which made perfect logical sense to him.

Don't think I'm criticizing this brand of humor because I don't want you to hurt their feelings. I'm criticizing it because it's simply not useful in achieving your ends. As satisfying and vindicating as it is to treat people who oppose us as moral reprobates, the fact is, ultimately, you're going to need at least some of them to come over to your side to bring about an egalitarian society. You'll have better success by understanding the circumstances that have formed their world view and using that knowledge to form convincing arguments than you will by demonizing them.

FOODFOOD

Jun 18, 2012, 03:32 PM

...I don't think this thread is even about the topic anymore.

BIG OLAF

Jun 18, 2012, 03:33 PM

...I don't think this thread is even about the topic anymore.

It was doomed to befall this fate the instant it was made, really. Do not weep for it. Only pray it is killed painlessly.

NoiseHERO

Jun 18, 2012, 03:41 PM

...I don't think this thread is even about the topic anymore.

It's about me being an ally of the female race!

and invisible strawmen vs invisible extremists!

Uncle_bob

Jun 18, 2012, 03:42 PM

She's dumb and I wish all of the self-proclaimed "trolls" would stop giving her money and attention. If they had just ignored her then this wouldn't be what it is now.

I wish they'd both go away. :disapprove:

Xaeris

Jun 18, 2012, 03:45 PM

...

Then again, I guess I could be wrong.

Leviathan

Jun 18, 2012, 04:01 PM

But he never explicitly said anything as infantile as "it's not important unless it affects me," and especially not while flailing his arms.

It was in the same vein, it didn't have to be word for word but it follows the same vein of thought and believe it or not it was incredibly infantile as you said.

...I don't think this thread is even about the topic anymore.

Now it's about explaining why feminism isn't a dirty word. :disapprove:

.Rusty.

Jun 18, 2012, 04:13 PM

This article sums it up.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/

Well fuck i came in here to make that joke :wacko:

No wait i can add some stuff to the male advantage list.
We dont have to worry about loseing our job if we decide we want kids.
We dont get called a freindzoneing asshole if we say we are not interested in someone.

Oh wait that one might explain some of the nerd rage :wacko:

BIG OLAF

Jun 18, 2012, 04:19 PM

Now it's about explaining why feminism isn't a dirty word. :disapprove:

I think any "-ism" is a 'dirty word', for the reason I explained prior. There's no need for 'labels.' Only be fair and just to everyone, and don't discriminate based on anything besides personality (be a dick to someone if they're a dick first, etc.).

But, only in a perfect world. Which this one isn't.

FOODFOOD

Jun 18, 2012, 04:32 PM

The primary goal of Feminism (and other advocation groups) is to spread knowledge and awareness, while advocating for rights. It's extremists that give their groups such a bad rapport.

So I don't think -isms are dirty words, because they're really just trying to spread awareness and advocacy for something they're passionate about.

Big Olaf, one would say that you are a Big-Boobist, because you advocate big-boobs. You celebrate Big-Boobism.

Leviathan

Jun 18, 2012, 04:46 PM

I think any "-ism" is a 'dirty word', for the reason I explained prior. There's no need for 'labels.' Only be fair and just to everyone, and don't discriminate based on anything besides personality (be a dick to someone if they're a dick first, etc.).

But, only in a perfect world. Which this one isn't.

But there needs to be labels, how else do you think we are able to identify a problem and then work on creating a solution?

Your viewpoint if from a privileged viewpoint.
You say there is no need for labels? I feel as if you have ever been apart of a marginalized group then you will not know how it feels. It's easy to brush off an issue that doesn't mean anything or much to you unless you have ever been in that person's theoretical shoes.

Ideally, everyone should act and treat others as equals, but the creation and idea of being better than another has been going on since the beginning of time. And until we reach that peak someone has to fight for the rights of others even if it's only just a bit at a time.

BIG OLAF

Jun 18, 2012, 04:51 PM

Big Olaf, one would say that you are a Big-Boobist, because you advocate big-boobs. You celebrate Big-Boobism.

Only in video games. My preferences in the physical world are quite the contrary.

Also, I don't advocate them in a general sense. Only the pair you see below.

Xaeris

Jun 18, 2012, 04:55 PM

It was in the same vein, it didn't have to be word for word but it follows the same vein of thought and believe it or not it was incredibly infantile as you said.

No. That guy was not making an argument as simplistic as that. That isn't to say he was making a good argument, but there was more to it than straight up, unabashed hypocrisy. Let me link the whole interview, that little picture doesn't really do it justice.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

Let's listen in on 2:08: "It's not about the government trying to control a woman's body. It's about protecting a life." That's the beginning of an argument on the merits of infringing upon a person's life to intervene on the behalf of a fetus. That's not a simple or infantile argument at all. In fact, the proper counter requires some thought as to where we as a society are comfortable drawing the line on personal freedoms and at what point a life has a right to government protection.

Like I said, I don't necessarily think it's good. However, if a person genuinely believes a fetus is a human being entitled to protection, then it follows perfectly fine that they'd advocate for personhood. Likewise, if they see sperm as a lower form of life that doesn't meet the threshold, they wouldn't advocate personhood for it. You might ask how they arrive at that particular distinction. That's a very good question, and one that soapbox depictions of one's enemy would never prompt you to ask.

Now it's about explaining why feminism isn't a dirty word. :disapprove:

I do hope this isn't in respect to the conversation we're having, 'cause that's not what's happening at all.

NoiseHERO

Jun 18, 2012, 04:57 PM

I don't want equality! D<

Every time I wake up in the morning I want the government to give me 50 dollars for being black.

WAIT edit:

EXTREMELY RELEVANT NOT JUST TO THIS JOKE POST, BUT THIS WHOLE THREAD:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=watjO62NrVg

Valinne

Jun 18, 2012, 10:57 PM

Alright, I have to say something about this lady. This situation has nothing to do with feminism at all, although feminism is one of the most controversial labels to tack onto anything.

The issue here isn't that Anita Sarkeesian is a feminist, a woman, or anything like that. I along with many other people I'm sure, am quite interested in seeing an analytical perspective of various cliches and tropes regarding females in video games.

The issue is with Anita Sarkeesian's method of providing her opinion. It is frequently biased, derogatory, and just plain factually incorrect. I remember watching a bunch of her videos in the past, including her infamous Bayonetta video in which she describes how sexist Bayonetta is despite the fact that she's a "struggling single mother". Anita deleted the video due to too many negative comments. She frequently censors any disagreement or criticism against her views, which lead to this whole trolling endeavor.

I'm 100% sure that those trolls weren't against feminism or women or anything of the sort, just against Anita. Finally being able to speak their mind against her obviously didn't turn out well, and it snowballed into something unholy, but trolling doesn't start from nothing. Think about what trolling means. Something had to spark it. Many jumped on the bandwagon, but I'm sure that wasn't the original intent.

Anyway, I have nothing against feminism or anyone who supports it, but just be a little cautious of supporting Anita Sarkeesian herself. Maybe she will actually provide a decent look into video game culture (I'm really hoping, it's a topic I am interested in), but if the videos start rolling and misinformed bias is in order, it will have been expected.

Like her or not, a lot of eyes are on all of the money she raised. If she's not hiring James Cameron to direct her video series, it's going to leave a lot of questions as to where the rest of the fundraising cash is going.

Randomness

Jun 19, 2012, 12:02 AM

But there needs to be labels, how else do you think we are able to identify a problem and then work on creating a solution?

Your viewpoint if from a privileged viewpoint.
You say there is no need for labels? I feel as if you have ever been apart of a marginalized group then you will not know how it feels. It's easy to brush off an issue that doesn't mean anything or much to you unless you have ever been in that person's theoretical shoes.

Ideally, everyone should act and treat others as equals, but the creation and idea of being better than another has been going on since the beginning of time. And until we reach that peak someone has to fight for the rights of others even if it's only just a bit at a time.

There's also major biological reasons for labeling - stereotyping is a basic shortcut in handling sensory input. The important thing is to know when to dig a layer past your learned estimations. Precision is a great thing, but too much is overwhelming.

-isms, on the other hand, are often emotionally charged and laden with connotations, which is a perfectly good reason to dislike the use of the words themselves.

Sinue_v2

Jun 19, 2012, 12:27 AM

I'm 100% sure that those trolls weren't against feminism or women or anything of the sort, just against Anita. Finally being able to speak their mind against her obviously didn't turn out well, and it snowballed into something unholy, but trolling doesn't start from nothing. Think about what trolling means. Something had to spark it. Many jumped on the bandwagon, but I'm sure that wasn't the original intent.

Valinne: My wits still war with how this all began.

Anita: Hate for feminism. I can only guess. The night I started posting this blog, the foul creeps came.

Valinne: So, nothing was done to upset the trolls themselves?

Anita: Oh, Valinne, they're fucking trolls! Maybe someone looked at them the wrong way.

Valinne: Some Feminist?

Anita: ...I never begged anyone to come here. Take on our fight. I don't hold you here.

Valinne: I know you don't.

Anita: Then don't sour my heart with talk about why a troll does what a fucking troll does!

Peejay

Jun 19, 2012, 12:52 AM

Valinne: My wits still war with how this all began.

Anita: Hate for feminism. I can only guess. The night I started posting this blog, the foul creeps came.

Valinne: So, nothing was done to upset the trolls themselves?

Anita: Oh, Valinne, they're fucking trolls! Maybe someone looked at them the wrong way.

Valinne: Some Feminist?

Anita: ...I never begged anyone to come here. Take on our fight. I don't hold you here.

Valinne: I know you don't.

Anita: Then don't sour my heart with talk about why a troll does what a fucking troll does!

Which just makes her look bitter. You don't win by being bitter, something I still have yet to manage myself.

Valinne

Jun 19, 2012, 01:10 AM

Akaimizu

Jun 19, 2012, 08:53 AM

I still wonder where the successful argument to the whole "this tips their ego" is one-sided when the variety of outfitting in videogames is quite wide. Even when some of the videogame characters go from sugar-sweet cuteness to perhaps oversexxed. I guess some male characters can be ugly, but that's the rub. The whole tipping the ego used as a statement still seems like a double-standard given that in typical stereo-typical upraising, the "stroking the ego" technically goes both ways when dealing with characters you play.

It's like no matter how depraved the male character looks or dresses like, it's no problem because it strokes the ego? Not seeing the connection there. Maybe not really, perhaps they simply play well or have the cool aspect of trying to overcome their life handicap. Perhaps, it's clear they don't care as much because it's a videogame and it doesn't suck.

Then again, maybe people are overthinking it too much without actually considering the feelings of the others. It always makes things seem that people start shouting about how they think it impacts their feelings when they are just as guilty as the people that may actually fit into those that they target. A lot of argument comes without any real consultation or understanding of the "other side of the fence" and they just blurt out what they think they feel or just dismiss their feelings altogether.

That's why the real true argument needs to be done by more than one person. Two people with the opposite style of how they were brought up. Because upbringing is a real divider as to what they think is important. But it does sound angry the moment one side completely throws out any consideration for feelings of the other and simply treats them as unfeeling objects. This is where the bias is and where a lot of people get a bit stirred up by. Some people talking strongly against are those who are trolling or are being mean or incensitive; but just as plausible, some of them speaking against are males with feelings who feel like someone is broadcasting themselves and telling them they don't have feelings. That they are unfeeling objects. And even worse, that the person is trying to educate people about how much of an unfeeling object they are.

A videogame represents a character, not the entire population. "Educational" videos can often try to group entire populations and make false accusations about them. That's many steps past videogames. Now that doesn't mean certain videogames out there can be rather off-putting and cross lines. They usually don't get represented that well.

An argument could be made about Duke Nukem Forever actually since yes it does contain a level that is really uncomfortable to play through, for a man or a woman. Mostly because when it comes to horrible atrocities (whether alien or not) a human sympathizes with the human victim. But then there's a lot of other smaller company things out there that are ready to insult just about any race or creed. Nobody is safe. But just like Duke Nukem Forever, they wont be seen in the classic (greats) anytime (soon) forever.

Thing is, more women will play videogames, and the games will automatically change with the population. That is, you'll see more and more lead characters of all types and more and more fanservice, for what a studio's best guess, is for both genders. Like all the guys that are dressed from GQ magazine looks to bondage, to roleplay in KOF games along with girls that go from suits, to cute, to roleplay, to provacative. Or the interesting outfits of the entire cast of Guilty Gear. And then games that one will have more attempted male fanservice, the other more attempted female fanservice. Videogames don't stick with just one way regardless of how the audience changes. The creators of our biggest titles are influenced by money. Plain and simple.

That should've been clear and apparent from the day when Ms. Pacman was created because they realized women made up a great population of their Pacman-playing audience.

Peejay

Jun 19, 2012, 10:19 AM

Makes her look bitter, makes me look way cooler than I really am, haha.
I really have nothing against her though, just the way she conducts herself. Which could be said about feminism as a whole as well, actually.

Not necessarily as a whole, really, but any outspoken ones do come off as borderline-abusive.

.Rusty.

Jun 19, 2012, 11:06 AM

BIG OLAF

Jun 19, 2012, 11:33 AM

I think the complaints about female outfits is they are sexulized in situations that make them look suicidal.Like in olafs sig the girl has protective stuff all over the place apart from the boob window.

Well, in all fairness, they would be covered if she could actually zip the zipper (the little white thing under the chest) (http://i.imgur.com/Nr5GM.jpg) over the friggin' things. :lol:

.Rusty.

Jun 19, 2012, 11:48 AM

Well if you go in to a combat situation wearing armor you can't fit into you will most likely end up on this website http://www.darwinawards.com/darwin/ :P

Well unless your fighting style is based on slaping people to death with your tits.

BIG OLAF

Jun 19, 2012, 11:51 AM

Sure, if it wasn't a video game. But it is, so none of that is relevant.

NoiseHERO

Jun 19, 2012, 11:55 AM

Well unless your fighting style is based on slaping people to death with your tits.

It is

You know why she doesn't have any pets? BECAUSE THOSE THINGS TAKE UP TOO MUCH SPACE, IT MAKES THE AIR THIN.

TINY LUNGS WILL DIE.

Akaimizu

Jun 19, 2012, 12:29 PM

I think the complaints about female outfits is they are sexulized in situations that make them look suicidal.Like in olafs sig the girl has protective stuff all over the place apart from the boob window.

Well, Phantasy Star (and a number of certain RPGs) definitely is more akin to that in the Online games. I agree with that aspect that it doesn't make sense. But Phantasy Star actually makes a statement that nothing is sacred due to the fact that the real protective gear is an invisible shield. My actual complaints about it were more on the lack of choice than anything. If you wanted to dress for a fight, like a tomboy, your choices were very very slim. But if you wanted to cover up, one of the main things is an elaborate dress with high heels, and all kinds of accesories like chains and necklaces... not exactly made for the most amount of mobility without hurting the wearer or possibly blocking their visibility in a tumble.

On the other hand, yes certain RPGs did the male/female armor disparacies with no explanation as to how they are protected. Peaole will ridicule that until the cows come home. It is funny to see that ridiculed because it makes no sense. Then you have fighting games where it's actually the *rare* person or so in a fighting game that is actually properly dressed to that type of fight. Yeah, we get that rogues/thieves and mages will dress with the intention that they aren't to get hit at all, but it is the rogue's idea that they should also dress not to distract. Any kind of funny outfit that is designed more to attract attention would not be in their best interest.

Alas, you wont see that in a popular military shooter. People are properly outfitted because those games don't tolerate unrealistically dressed soldiers.

.Rusty.

Jun 19, 2012, 12:34 PM

Sure, if it wasn't a video game. But it is, so none of that is relevant.

Well i was kinda talking about the male power fantasy vs women in sexy out fit stuff.
Like how a lot of women do not like huge impossibly muscled men it just shows up a lot because muscle = power.
A huge powerful fighter showing off his/her muscles makes sense because it is intimidating.
A a skinny fighter with her boobs/ass hanging out is just wank material.

I aint saying fictional characters being sexy is bad just you know context.

My actual complaints about it were more on the lack of choice than anything. If you wanted to dress for a fight, like a tomboy, your choices were very very slim. But if you wanted to cover up, one of the main things is an elaborate dress with high heels, and all kinds of accesories like chains and necklaces... not exactly made for the most amount of mobility without hurting the wearer or possibly blocking their visibility in a tumble.

Exactly women often always end up in outfits that are kinda dum given the situation.

Then again most of the male stuff in psu was dum as well :wacko:

Akaimizu

Jun 19, 2012, 12:39 PM

.Rusty.

Jun 19, 2012, 12:43 PM

Akaimizu

Jun 19, 2012, 01:15 PM

^ Well, what's interesting is that Samurai Shodown was the first game I could say where the roles were almost reversed. In fact, the *only* person well armored for the fight with bladed weapons was a woman. Charlotte. The other woman, who wasn't as much, was dressed in traditional garb of her people yet was also a goddess, so I guess she could get away with it. Not to mention her garb was perfectly suited to fighting mobility.

Of course, SNK also turned around and went the fanservice way for a number of their early games...before they decided to reciprocate and attempt dual-sided fanservice.

Outrider

Jun 19, 2012, 07:32 PM

That's the thing. Is it really a male power fantasy to be a hulk? Maybe to some men, but it isn't some universal truth. My dream was always to be an entertainer and a musician, so I never had big strong muscles as a thing to look up to. I'd rather go for lean and mobile on myself.

Considering how much of the world doesn't go by physical strength, I don't know if this can be the same claim as some think it is.

As for the strong men thing, I think it's only because it is publicized so much that Muscles get the women, that it becomes somewhat of a conditioned truth in some circles. Particularly in materialistic schools (like every other public school) for which the jocks do tend to be more favored.

Weird. I heard this same idea from somebody else just the other day.

The fact that you don't consider it the ideal or that it isn't your fantasy doesn't change the fact that it's a power fantasy. The focus of the character's design is their physical strength and imposing nature. They are built in such a way to make them look powerful.

With female characters, they are often designed with a major focus on their sex characteristics (such as oversized breasts or a costume that exposes as much skin as possible even if it doesn't make sense.) The character is designed not to look powerful but to look sexy.

It sounds more like you're raising concerns with the idea that these stereotypes are "idealized" portrayals of men and women which isn't what is being suggested when describing them as power fantasies or sexual fantasies (unless the implication is that power and sex are inherently male or female traits, which is decidedly false).

Akaimizu

Jun 19, 2012, 07:59 PM

Not that I was suggesting that. It was more of the case that someone is implying one is ideal the other isn't. I mean, in what way do you consider it an unfair comparison and by what kind of view? Especially in which many of the cases the physical muscle strength isn't what gives them the advantage. Maybe in a specific game where you actually play Hulk (strongest one there is) or something. Because the main thing is ripping up impossibly large structures with your super strength. But alas, Hulk games aren't exactly the common thing.

That fact that someone brings up the power fantasy and sexual one in the first place is already suggesting some sort of scale for which you are questioning itself. That's what I'm questioning, because if they aren't raising those concerns, then why did they bring that up in the first place?

I also agree that the traits is decidedly false which is why I actually even spoke up in the first place. It's the idea that many of these arguments are brought up in the first place by those making those implications, and I don't see the evidence that they aren't doing so.

.Rusty.

Jun 20, 2012, 05:46 AM

That fact that someone brings up the power fantasy and sexual one in the first place is already suggesting some sort of scale for which you are questioning itself. That's what I'm questioning, because if they aren't raising those concerns, then why did they bring that up in the first place?

The power fantasy stuff comes up because some people argue that men are sexulized just as much as women. But most of the time its what a lot of guys want to be and not what women are attracted to. Like if i was batman i could do what i want and wouldn't have to take shit from anyone.

Where as women often end up in passive / submissive roles and if they do end up fighting they usually are designed to be as sexy as possible.

So the male side is better because they often take a more active role.
But like you said not every one wants the power fantsy stuff because people are individuals which is why gender roles are dumb.

And all this stuff is normaly written by dudes for dudes which is why some women complain about it.

Akaimizu

Jun 20, 2012, 09:04 AM

^ Though they'd be surprised how many times this stuff is released with women doing the input to the direction of the game. It's more about marketting to the highest population of the market and what is perceived by the developers as to what they want. But like history tells us, that games do change with the perceived population of gamers.

When we first grew up, (of course some of this was technology), games generally were more kid safe with few exceptions. But as the gaming group grew up, the amount of mature-rated games grew. My argument is that it is just a market thing and the solution is so simple. People want to picket and or jump on the idea that "Man is gaming so imbalanced" when all they really have to do is show that they actually play videogames. As the market continues to wake up to the idea that videogames are not limited to one gender, they'll automatically work their way to catering to more interests in fantasy. Now some of this was a social engineering problem. For a lot of people, and for a long time, there was a peer pressure for girls not to play videogames in the US. There was a definite idea that games were gender-bound. Of course, that did lead to the issues some people talk of now. All those years of improper videogame perception did lop-side the audience. And videogames follow the market.

It's all money, that's all I'm saying. It'll change with the population. The solution is quite easy.

.Rusty.

Jun 20, 2012, 11:34 AM

^ Though they'd be surprised how many times this stuff is released with women doing the input to the direction of the game.

Probably not as internalized misogyny and misogyny in the work place are things that exist.

Seriously tho guys you gotta be kinda naive to think both genders are treated 100% equal in society.

Akaimizu

Jun 20, 2012, 12:55 PM

Probably not as internalized misogyny and misogyny in the work place are things that exist.

Seriously tho guys you gotta be kinda naive to think both genders are treated 100% equal in society.

They aren't. Thus why we even bring up Social engineering in there, in the first place. It's a life long thing, and it starts since the day you're born. Your point is my point exactly, but it goes a little further than that.

Just saying that videogames always have catered to the percieved majority, with those who think this is a money-making idea. The idea that many more female characters are in videogames, kicking butt and making a difference, is change. The tropes may not have completely shifted; it is still heavily biased between gender, race, etc. However, if you can take a historical spyglass and look at the kinds of videogame characters represented each decade, there's a good bit of alterations made with the changing audience. In the old days, girls were only made for saving. Nowadays, they're often right in the party with you, if it is not you, kicking butt along-side you. And no longer do they just simply have to be Mages and Clerics.

Erasing tropes doesn't happen overnight. Even outside of videogames it can seem to 1 generation to seemingly take forever. It's great to play outside the tropes. I'm a HUGE HUGE supporter of that, and anybody here can see my history of characters and backstories to see what I make and why I make them. Constantly fighting the battles against false stereotypes. But I also recognize that as much as you try to force things just out of the blue, it often doesn't happen that way. You have to hit them with the true motivation. The idea of bucketloads of money if you manage to target an even larger audience willing to heavily increase sales.

Of course, sometimes things break expectations a little. Some of us wanted more combat-oriented female clothes for Phantasy Star because that game, a long time ago, did the genius thing to break convention. Right from Phantasy Star 1, how this all got started was the efforts of a strong lead female wearing full adventure outfit, carrying a sword, and going warrior style. She became the heroine that is the original basis for what all Phantasy Star combatants strive to be, or achieve.

It definitely raised the expectations for a breaking of gender stereotypes within an RPG series. In occupation, I would say, it still carries some; but the clothing somehow got lost in the IP.

BIG OLAF

Jun 20, 2012, 01:01 PM

Seriously tho guys you gotta be kinda naive to think both genders are treated 100% equal in society.

I'm fully aware that the genders aren't 100% equal, but women aren't the only ones with issues. Sure, they'll argue that men's issues 'don't matter', or 'aren't as important', but to me, that's equally sexist.

Which is why I look at the broader picture, and support rights for every group where it's due, and don't focus on one "side" of the fight.

.Rusty.

Jun 20, 2012, 01:11 PM

Not expecting things to get better over night. Its just media / social problems sometime exist in a self sustaining feedback loop.

I'm fully aware that the genders aren't 100% equal, but women aren't the only ones with issues. Sure, they'll argue that men's issues 'don't matter', or 'aren't as important', but to me, that's equally sexist.

Which is why I look at the broader picture, and support rights for every group where it's due, and don't focus on one "side" of the fight.

:: bangs head on desk ::

I never said women aren't the only ones with issues. But if you just dismiss some ones opinions because of a political label you are kind of part of the problem.
It is sometime possible to be prejudiced with out knowing it.

:Hint: the women that say men's issues 'don't matter' are misandist idiots who shoud be ignored just like the MRA who blame all there problems on women.