I assumed the money was the problem. And apparently some other argument you can't form into words.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"More than a Damsel in a dress" - Kite Tales. A better video with none of the budget.
- Thread starter LuchaShaq
- Start date
I assumed the money was the problem. And apparently some other argument you can't form into words.
Well said, it's like some people pretend that Anita's arguments are perfect and can't be criticized. Not only that but they dismissive every other opinions with "u mad", "u salty", such a childish and ironic attitude. Preachers who don't practise what they preach.
KiteTales' video is not great per se, but it shows how Anita's approach to cricisim is fallacious because it's selective and biased.
Actually, a pretty decent video overall, even though a couple of items (asking for quantitative data, to name one) seemed out of place.
She comes into proximity here with a much larger point about agency and gender that I'd like to hear fleshed out even more; it really stands at the core of the problem with Sarkeesian and with her overall blindness to avenues of character empowerment that don't take an overtly masculine form.
Essentially, the point is that it's not inherently disempowering of a character like Zelda to see her captured or to rarely see her assert physical strength. To turn the fact that she isn't Link into some kind of fundamental weakness is itself a valuation based on what are only masculine ideals of agency. In her different incarnations, we've seen quite a bit of Zelda that gives her arguably more complexity than our mute protagonist, who just hurls himself through battles somewhat blindly (in fact, Link's entire progression is typically directed by a more knowledgable female companion of some sort, from faeries to Midna, so it's utterly bizarre to read him as unproblematically in charge of any kind of real agency). Zelda is often shown to have wisdom, a voice for a people, a sense of gravity and the greater cause at hand, etc; I see not how physical strength would mean anything to her, though she even shows a hint of that in her disguise in OoT. All this, but she ultimately bothers someone like Sarkeesian only because her form of empowerment is too feminine in nature.
The idea of a nobler character who must be protected is always a bit more complex than Sarkeesian's reductive reading claiming that it inherently normalizes a belief in women's weakness. It's usually not so much about the gender being saved or protected as it is about a certain kind of character who is nobler, more pure than those engaged in violence. What I mean is illustrated in Double Dragon, the rather dumb arcade game that was meant to be one of Sarkeesian's biggest offenders. It can't be missed that female thugs appear throughout the game and are capable fighters (though Sarkeesian skips over it); so the rescue of the girlfriend has little to do with a representation that women are inherently weak, and more to do with the old concept of saving a character who shouldn't have to be involved in the violence, someone too good for it. That's a classic story arc and yes, also connected to certain visions of femininity, but it's far from a pronouncement on the inherent power of women when they appear as fighters two screens over from the event of capture.
She comes into proximity here with a much larger point about agency and gender that I'd like to hear fleshed out even more; it really stands at the core of the problem with Sarkeesian and with her overall blindness to avenues of character empowerment that don't take an overtly masculine form.
Essentially, the point is that it's not inherently disempowering of a character like Zelda to see her captured or to rarely see her assert physical strength. To turn the fact that she isn't Link into some kind of fundamental weakness is itself a valuation based on what are only masculine ideals of agency. In her different incarnations, we've seen quite a bit of Zelda that gives her arguably more complexity than our mute protagonist, who just hurls himself through battles somewhat blindly (in fact, Link's entire progression is typically directed by a more knowledgable female companion of some sort, from faeries to Midna, so it's utterly bizarre to read him as unproblematically in charge of any kind of real agency). Zelda is often shown to have wisdom, a voice for a people, a sense of gravity and the greater cause at hand, etc; I see not how physical strength would mean anything to her, though she even shows a hint of that in her disguise in OoT. All this, but she ultimately bothers someone like Sarkeesian only because her form of empowerment is too feminine in nature.
The idea of a nobler character who must be protected is always a bit more complex than Sarkeesian's reductive reading claiming that it inherently normalizes a belief in women's weakness. It's usually not so much about the gender being saved or protected as it is about a certain kind of character who is nobler, more pure than those engaged in violence. What I mean is illustrated in Double Dragon, the rather dumb arcade game that was meant to be one of Sarkeesian's biggest offenders. It can't be missed that female thugs appear throughout the game and are capable fighters (though Sarkeesian skips over it); so the rescue of the girlfriend has little to do with a representation that women are inherently weak, and more to do with the old concept of saving a character who shouldn't have to be involved in the violence, someone too good for it. That's a classic story arc and yes, also connected to certain visions of femininity, but it's far from a pronouncement on the inherent power of women when they appear as fighters two screens over from the event of capture.
WrenchNinja
Member
Lol at people trying to say Zelda does anything of note in OoT. Evade my ass.
You want to use Zelda in an argument, use an actual great incarnation of her where she actually does aid the player (Spirit Tracks) and doesnt just teach you songs, spout cryptic bullshit and disappears till the next dungeon.
You want to use Zelda in an argument, use an actual great incarnation of her where she actually does aid the player (Spirit Tracks) and doesnt just teach you songs, spout cryptic bullshit and disappears till the next dungeon.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
She dosn't need to be proven wrong but she can't be the only and highly prominient view on the matter. One view that many people, feminists or not, consider it has faults (as it may have some truths).
She did a study on some matter, I think is logical to assume it needs some critical thinking and it could be good for her and subsequent of her videos. Of course she's know to avoid any criticism and bury her mistakes, but well.
Riposte
Member
The player (i.e. Link) wouldn't be able to progress without the abilities of Zelda/Sheik. More than the collection of written lines that makes up the "world" in the background, she plays an important role in the "world" the player actually interacts with. This interaction is still one of support, because it is up to the player to overcome challenge, not NPCs (this is true for all of the game's allies). Ganon's role is to appear at an opportune moment and take what you actually did and then wait in his castle to eventually be killed. In this, I see how Zelda/Sheik is much more active in the game we actually play.
chickdigger802
Banned
While Zelda may have started out as just a damsel in distress, it does feel like get character seems to represent some semblance of importance to what ever the world and or to link. And it's not like link doesn't help out dudes as well.
Peach is always just peach though. But they do play around with her character in the rpg games.
Peach is always just peach though. But they do play around with her character in the rpg games.
Lowlander2
Banned
Whosoever made her popular, Sarkeesian has, for whatever reason, seemingly become the go-to person for discussions on feminism in video games and the video game community. I maintain that she didn't embrace this mantle wholeheartedly, but people like your Miles Cheong, DeLoria, Brice and so on do seem to embody her. And I'm not sure I agree with that.
To many, her base ideas are enough of an affront to their ideals that they need to scrutinize her. Me? I do it because whether or not she realises it, she's accepted a great deal of responsibility.
This isn't just any video series. This was a series backed so much that it sent the message that it would be world-changing, or at the very least, become the next milestone in gender equality discussions, up there with Germaine Greer, or so I get from the vibes. And...I don't think she hits it by a long shot. That's why I, and perhaps others, are diving in as much. Because this isn't just another video series.
In fact it's not a video series at all right now, and that seriously irks me. The money isn't the issue, but the time is.
Her mere existence is fine. In fact, even with the flaws, it's great that the video exists. But for as much as people talked her up when we could be reading essays that give off true academic vibes, or create a more wholesome picture? When we could be reading Brice or Myers? Nopers, sir.
You've given me two projects and I'm just trying to eat breakfast. If you want to invoke a logical fallacy feel free to explain what you mean, and if you are receptive to the idea that sexism exists you can let me know.
tkscz
Member
Prepare your anus from the Sarkeesian defenders.
But i agree with this. Zelda has many characteristics that make her more important than Link. I also think Anita's use of subject and object is far too subjective to be used. I simply don't see how Link is the subject of a game named after Zelda. It's her legend, she is the leader of the sages, she is what causes Link to venture in the first place. She holds the tri-force more often than Link does. She is the subject of the game, Link is simply the figurative tool, or object, used to help see Zelda's goals of peace and the defeat of Gannondorf. That's just my opinion of it though. I can never see how Zelda is seen as a trophy to Link, or even Gannondorf, you doesn't capture Zelda just to have her, but captures her for the power she holds. Hell, in OoT he wanted both Zelda and Link.
Because Link is the one that actually gets shit done.
The fact that her name is in the title means nothing. Hell, her name was in the title of Majora's Mask, and she doesn't appear in that game at all.
Delusibeta
Banned
I would be less salty if she'd used the money to increase the rate she's released videos from before the Kickstarter. I would have accepted the several month delay if it turned out that she was pre-preparing episodes to release regularly. As it turned out, she hasn't, and we're back to waiting for the next episode before some semblance of new discussion (by which I mean "on a subject that hasn't been beaten to the ground several times over") can occur. Honestly, I question whether she needed the money in the first place, since I'm struggling to come up with a difference between her videos before and after the Kickstarter in terms of content, presentation and regularity.
Oh for god's sake.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Did you miss the part we're talking about Link, Zelda and Peach?.
Those aren't NFL players....
Wait... the Triforce of Courage actively affected the world?
I like the use of CT's trial scene.
Some things:
A character that is on the middle of the screen for the entire duration of the game will always be more important than every other character. The protagonist is the protagonist regardless of lore, so this idea that Peach is more important than Mario because of an almost not-existent lore just seem insane to me. Yes, to the mushroom kingdom, Peach is more important, but to real world kingdom, it is Mario's name on the box.
Anita's goal is to point examples and not make this broad statement that "games are sexist". Games where the same character is not a Damsel in Distress or games where the character is well constructed enough so being captured doesn't look like helpessness don't fit the goal of the project, which is to point examples of one trope. In the future there will be an episode of "examples of games doing it right" or something, but that's not it.
But maybe having a goal exactly like this is a problem with the series in the first place, I feel there is a vacuum of actual commentary on Anita's video and people fill this vacuum by raging or defending what they find important. I don't know if this will improve as the series goes on, but as her video is maybe too introductory for its own good, because it really lacks argument and conclusion. I do enjoy it for what it is, though; it just may be not enough.
And I agree with Hachi, there's a discussion here about feminine characteristics not being dismissed as weak just for being feminine, there really is a lot to be said about that, and I guess we will get there when discussing tropes that involve female characters with masculine characteristics to make them seem strong.
And finally, the end seemed all kinds of silly to me, Anita has no obligation to make people feel hopeful if she really thinks the situation is bleak. As is the stuff about gaming being made to gamers and not to social critics, like social critics can't be gamers or gamers can't care about these issues. It's like this weird conformist vibe that the problem arises when you point out that there is a problem and that by not talking about it, it doesn't really exist.
Some things:
A character that is on the middle of the screen for the entire duration of the game will always be more important than every other character. The protagonist is the protagonist regardless of lore, so this idea that Peach is more important than Mario because of an almost not-existent lore just seem insane to me. Yes, to the mushroom kingdom, Peach is more important, but to real world kingdom, it is Mario's name on the box.
Anita's goal is to point examples and not make this broad statement that "games are sexist". Games where the same character is not a Damsel in Distress or games where the character is well constructed enough so being captured doesn't look like helpessness don't fit the goal of the project, which is to point examples of one trope. In the future there will be an episode of "examples of games doing it right" or something, but that's not it.
But maybe having a goal exactly like this is a problem with the series in the first place, I feel there is a vacuum of actual commentary on Anita's video and people fill this vacuum by raging or defending what they find important. I don't know if this will improve as the series goes on, but as her video is maybe too introductory for its own good, because it really lacks argument and conclusion. I do enjoy it for what it is, though; it just may be not enough.
And I agree with Hachi, there's a discussion here about feminine characteristics not being dismissed as weak just for being feminine, there really is a lot to be said about that, and I guess we will get there when discussing tropes that involve female characters with masculine characteristics to make them seem strong.
And finally, the end seemed all kinds of silly to me, Anita has no obligation to make people feel hopeful if she really thinks the situation is bleak. As is the stuff about gaming being made to gamers and not to social critics, like social critics can't be gamers or gamers can't care about these issues. It's like this weird conformist vibe that the problem arises when you point out that there is a problem and that by not talking about it, it doesn't really exist.
Okay, here's the (1) problem put into words (I've reiterated it a few times): it's people who wanted a certain opinion funding someone (an authoritative and influential person) with a self serving, biased opinion. Authority in turn simply provides fuel to be used as self-serving bias in whoever else subscribes to that view. Properly researching it and putting certain methods in place to prevent an obvious bias (I'm not expecting Sarkeesian to do a full scientific study here), would've suited the entire discussion on sexism in videogames a lot better, which goes back to this post:
To save you from sifting through trash: yes, I'm against sexism in videogames.
It doesn't matter if we're told someone has agency--or worse if it's only implied by their title or job description--if it's not actually shown (or if it's shown but swiftly taken away). Nor does it really help your cause to say, "well she's not *just* a trophy..." There's still prize-winning going on. The main counter-argument to, "this is a shitty boring cliche that plays on our historically-influenced perceptions of female vulnerability and objectification" is that, well, it's justified in the story. But game creators are writing that story; they are not transcribing historical or current events. They have the ability to think about what they're writing, and create stories that are equally compelling and not insulting.
On the Kickstarter page, Anita claims to be, "a gamer, a pop culture critic and a fan." She did not present herself as an expert or authority. She is a person with an opinion making YouTube videos. I am genuinely confused by your position that she is wrong to have an opinion before airing that opinion.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
What's the *price* for salving Zelda?, saving Zelda is not the price is a requeriment to finish the game. And often it involves Zelda fighting with you and helping you. Neither Zelda is vulnerable, she is not strong physically speaking, but power or a character value just dosn't reside in just pure brute strenght. How is that close to "historically-influenced perceptions of female vulnerability and objectification" like Snowhite or other similar females in popular media?.
That's just a very shortsighted and biased view of the character.
So the more people like your work the more you need to be objective, regardless if people like your work because of your subjective opinion?
"Who are you to decide how people choose to spend money that was deliberately given to them?"
Or whatever someone trying to give the impression of arguing from the moral high ground would say.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I'm not sure I understand the point of a voiceover if 100% of what it says is going to be on screen. It's like a powerpoint presentation with reams of texts. Put up the bullet points and let the speaker elaborate on them.
That depends on your goal. In my opinion, if your goal is to make a scientifically sound contribution and advance our understanding of a subject matter, then yes, the more popular you are the more care you need to take to be objective. If your goal is simply to entertain then that is not the case.
Do you mean "prize?" I'm having a hard time understanding what you're saying here. Also I didn't even say the word "Zelda," so it's pretty awful of you to accuse me of bias against a specific character. Are you sure you're not just making an immediate knee-jerk reaction without trying to absorb the words I'm saying?
Relaxed Muscle
Member
Yeah, prize-winning or trophy, whatever you call it. So if you weren't speaking of Zelda, in what way your message had any relevance in the matter of the video which focus on Peach and Zelda?
And can you be less agressive please? Because I wasn't in any way. I'm not a native speaker, so if you have problems understanding my arguments I'll try to be more clearer. Thanks.
Why do you assume people all have black and white, thought out opinions on this issue? There are plenty of people in the middle, or who have never thought about it, who may see the videos and think there's something to them, despite the fact that they wouldn't get published in the American Sociological Review.
Her work could be much better, but I think you are being unnecessarily hard on her.
Someone's fresh opinion being solely based on a biased source is the worst case scenario.
And I'm being hard on her because I should be. She's the most visible part of the debate. I'd also love for journalists to change their tune, but that isn't likely to happen.
Huh? The Triforce of Courage drives Link to save the world. The Triforce of Wisdom drives Zelda to go to teacher's college or some shit.
KojiKnight
Member
This video seems pretty good, honestly in the middle of watching it right now... but the simple fact that in her first few minutes she pretty much tackles the head on weakness of Anita's approach is great. And as has been mentioned, she didn't abuse kickstarter to make 2-4 years worth of the average person's salary to do it.
VanillaCakeIsBurning
Member
... You can still do that.
Is closing the window and turning on a game too difficult for you? Have these threads generated some kind of kinetic barrier around your gaming devices?
I really don't understand responses like these.
Karsticles
Member
That was a fantastic video and a breath of fresh air.
Agreed. As a rebuke it doesn't quite hold up, since the narrative rarely acts upon the game mechanics themselves, but it's good to see discussions on the topic.
Maybe try not accusing me of holding a bias against a fictional character and calling me shortsighted when I'm making a fair point that can be discussed on its own terms? I noticed you didn't actually answer my question: are you sure you're not just making an immediate knee-jerk reaction without trying to absorb the words I'm saying?
I am not a social scientist so I don't understand how they choose what to work on. Do they randomly select subjects to study and then randomly select concepts to study the subjects for? Or do they have a subject in mind then randomly select a topic, or the other way around? This is a real question.
Terrible response video. KiteTales sounded like a fangirl and apologist.
KitTales seems to understand proper academic study design but failed to understand that this topic isnt appropriate for some elements of it. Women are known to be misrepresented in gaming and Anita did a survey to document which ones had what. KiteTales critiqued Anita for being biased and not conducting a real 'study' but didnt offer any data of her own. Anita in her video covered a wide range of games that were not plotless multiplayer games (yes anita focused on the big two, but she showdd a much wider range of games than this video). Yes i would love to see real numbers from these women for the prevalence of tropes and both videos are weaker for its exclusion.
The Damsel in distress trope is a story element and including multiplayer games which are usually devoid of story is pointless and misleading.
Id rant more but i am stuck on my iPad.
KitTales seems to understand proper academic study design but failed to understand that this topic isnt appropriate for some elements of it. Women are known to be misrepresented in gaming and Anita did a survey to document which ones had what. KiteTales critiqued Anita for being biased and not conducting a real 'study' but didnt offer any data of her own. Anita in her video covered a wide range of games that were not plotless multiplayer games (yes anita focused on the big two, but she showdd a much wider range of games than this video). Yes i would love to see real numbers from these women for the prevalence of tropes and both videos are weaker for its exclusion.
The Damsel in distress trope is a story element and including multiplayer games which are usually devoid of story is pointless and misleading.
Id rant more but i am stuck on my iPad.
They pick a subject based on prior studies/theories/knowledge, and then they explain what they're going to study and how they're going to define their constructs. But the important method to avoid bias is to present all of your information in your research paper, and distance yourself from the parts experimentation (with research assistants who don't know the goal of the experiment). The important thing that after you've created your hypothesis, the experiment isn't done with the goal in mind. You go back to the hypothesis after you have all of the data and conduct analysis.
travisbickle
Member
Damsel in distress is a simple enough concept; the protagonists reason to be is to rescue the damsel. In Mario the dude literally does not eat, sleep or shit his whole existence is spent searching to ultimately rescue the damsel. He even takes body altering drugs to perform the task!!!
Well, I'm in philosophy, but I imagine it is the same thing, which is that it starts from the heart.
No, really, it starts with a theory, someone else's theory most of the time, an authority in the field. And then you put your spin on it, which usually means to apply the theory in a way it haven't yet. Be it crossing data that haven't being crossed (like, comparing broad gender theories about masculine and feminine in general with male or female videogame characters) or challenging some part of the theory. Either way, the theory is tested and as it is tested more, it becomes more solid, or more authoritive if you want to use the term.
There is no such thing as just looking at the world without preconceptions and figuring it out. What you have, if you're smart and competent, is looking at both the world and the best (or the most accepted) theory out there in order to identify where it went wrong, and for bonus point, you might even propose a better worldview than the one you just challenged.
dragonelite
Member
Music teacher, how else do i play the song of time.