Support NeoGAF

[hachi]

No, that's what *you're* doing by not acknowledging that something you consider a positive characterization does not justify the existence of, or invalidate criticism of, something others consider negative or lazy characterization.

You'll have to be more precise. Each and every time the analysis gets down into the details of a particular character (or even into what actually constitutes agency), you recede to your broader, yet unarticulated problem with a trope writ large; and a trope is a rather shaky theoretical construction to begin with, for it leads to your approach of quickly grouping representations by external similarities while disregarding their very different contexts.

I hardly "invalidate criticism"--on the contrary, I believe that the criticism stands or falls with each paradigmatic case offered (and yes, Sarkeesian offered Zelda as a fundamental example of the problem, so it is indeed a problem if she got this one wrong).

This is fine as far as it goes, but it's also handwaving the real-world historical context of the trope itself. Your responses remind me of the Fink Manufacturing propaganda broadcast during Bioshock Infinite.

Your use of "trope" is again ambiguous and problematic. There's little to be said if you remain at that level of analysis. It's flatly a refusal to read or to think. I suppose we cannot meet eye to eye if you honestly believe tropes-based readings of this form constitute a coherent model for analysis.

Perhaps you would like to quote that which you reference from BioShock; I do the work of linking videos, show equal courtesy if wishing to criticize me directly. Though it wouldn't surprise me if you indeed see the Bioshock franchise as an example of great writing. Based solely on the first game, I couldn't disagree more; it's self-importance greatly exceeds its contributions. But a good game, nonetheless.

 

[Polo67]

Where is it confirmed he lost his job ? I would like to read.

 

[unbias]

Not really. Is the historical context of racial stereotypes only relevant when you look at eg movies or television in aggregate? Once again, the claim that "it's justified by the story" does not actually address the criticism.

So to you, racism and story tropes are comparable?

 

[Fugu]

I'm not sure if you genuinely interpret the video in this manner or not, but all I see in your reduction of this scene is great contempt for characters who do anything but fight on their own. Because she relies on others to fulfill their roles along the way to her goals--ie., because she is not an isolated tower of agency--she is therefore comically weak. But in fact she is hardly a cowering damsel waiting for Link; she only expects (and directs) him to fulfill his role in the larger drama, a role which would likewise be incomplete and futile without her own actions. Not only could he have never reached her without Midna, he also could not defeat Ganon without her powers. You continue to suggest that any model of agency that incorporates interdependency is a problem, as are any roles that stray from the hero model. I content precisely the opposite.

I'm just going to accept the fact that you're ignoring the part of my posts where I tell you that I am not saying that only hero modeled characters make for empowerment. I guess that means I can write whatever I want here. Twilight Princess has a really garbage plot; it's a Zelda game. Zelda gets kidnapped about a dozen times, and we're focusing on one of two times where she might have demonstrated a LITTLE bit of character. I'm not really sure why we're talking about it. Great game though.

You seem to be saying that Zelda's empowerment is through her correct decision to tell Link the (very basic) instructions for saving the world. Which role would you rather be in?

"I saved the world!"
"I got kidnapped and then told the guy who saved the world where to go!"

It's also important to consider that TP Link is infallible, whereas TP Zelda's entire plot line begins with an error. Also, at least according to the game, it's Link that does all of the discovery and intellectual legwork involved in obtaining everything.

I can't be right in my assessment of what you think makes Zelda empowering, because that's not empowering at all; anyone could have made the call that someone who presents themselves as the incarnate of the hero of time is probably who you're going to want to bank on. So what is it that makes her an empowering role model?

 

[APF]

You'll have to be more precise.

Uh what?

You said: "You would have us split characters into itemized checkboxes of attributes that must be covered for agency, rather than understanding the character as a unique unit."

I replied: "No, that's what *you're* doing by not acknowledging that something you consider a positive characterization does not justify the existence of, or invalidate criticism of, something others consider negative or lazy characterization."

Why did you avoid that point and instead attack me for allegedly "receding" when in fact I'm remaining consistent in what I'm actually talking about, and you consistently travel around the world to wave your hands around the actual issues being discussed? You're just mischaracterizing what I'm arguing and then sniping at me when I respond to that mischaracterization. Boring.

and a trope is a rather shaky theoretical construction to begin with, for it leads to your approach of quickly grouping representations by external similarities while disregarding their very different contexts.

And you once again completely avoid what I've consistently been saying in this thread, that "but it's justified by the story" does not invalidate criticism of negative characterizations, nor does something you consider a positive characterization negate criticism of negative ones.

Though it wouldn't surprise me if you indeed see the Bioshock franchise as an example of great writing. Based solely on the first game, I couldn't disagree more; it's self-importance greatly exceeds its contributions.

Sounds familiar.

So to you, racism and story tropes are comparable?

Depends on the trope or characterization.

 

[Fugu]

Again, saying the plot justifies the cliche does not eliminate the criticism. These characters are written into their roles, they are not transcribing actual historical events. And when these differences consistently occur in the same convenient pattern, cross-genre and across history, it's worthy of consideration before continuing to perpetuate them.

I missed this post before but it's a good one.

 

[hachi]

You seem to be saying that Zelda's empowerment is through her correct decision to tell Link the (very basic) instructions for saving the world. Which role would you rather be in?

"I saved the world!"
"I got kidnapped and then told the guy who saved the world where to go!"

Again, your summaries are so very loaded. She "got kidnapped" and that's it? She is presented as a leader who was willing fight, perhaps to die, when the battle began; but who wisely laid down her sword--and accepted her own imprisonment--in order to save her people. Link, on the other hand, is presented as a character who never really grasps anything that is happening, but who will be led around by Midna, who in turn remains powerful (several scenes show tremendous power), cunning, and knowledgable.

It's also important to consider that TP Link is infallible, whereas TP Zelda's entire plot line begins with an error.

To what error do you refer? If you're again making reference to her surrender, that's once again such an ideologically loaded way of reading. Any sacrifice not made by battle is an error, a pure passivity. Non-violent protest, self-immolation, unarmed resistance, non-heroic self-sacrifice for others... these are errors. Yes, I'm exaggerating, but the dismissal written all over your descriptions of this perfectly honorable and laudable character is a problem.

I can't be right in my assessment of what you think makes Zelda empowering, because that's not empowering at all; anyone could have made the call that someone who presents themselves as the incarnate of the hero of time is probably who you're going to want to bank on. So what is it that makes her an empowering role model?

You reduce her actions to "get captured" and "rely on Link." I don't know exactly how you get there from the scenes shown. He has a role to fulfill, but so does she.

Perhaps we should envision how the game would look if truly written the way you depict it. It would be very different indeed. Note that the surrender scene represents her in every shot as someone knowing, unafraid, and weighted down by her decisions. She's not carried away bawling, or cowering in fear, at any moment. To roll up any instance of capture into a classic image of "damsel" without attending to the particular representation is to immediately and unreflectively dismiss everything in the manner you have done each time you summarize this game.

Not that TP is the height of writing or representation. But you, like Sarkeesian, were quick to roll it uncritically into the trope to say "she's not the hero, she's a damsel; must be disempowering, give her a sword." I disagree, and find that way of thinking to be a problem.

 

[Macleoid]

Sounds familiar.

Boom, headshot

 

[unbias]

Depends on the trope or characterization.

Will never see eye to eye on that. Tropes in stories are used because ease of use and how relatable able it is due to the amount of literature on the subject. Saving your King/Queen from danger is everywhere in literature so it is very easy to steal ideas from it. Then when you add it in that enforced and built in desire for men to protect their women and children and the cost to their own lives, and how valuable that is placed in society, it is quite easy to see the appeal as a whole.

You cant compare it to racism, because it isn't a specific marginalization, story tropes are just that, and only if you think the writers intention is to marginalize women is it more then that. It doesn't make the story that uses the trope bad. You can just look at Zelda as an example of a bad version of the trope without also looking at how terrible the story is as a whole and how convoluted even the lore is.

 

[patapuf]

Not really. Is the historical context of racial stereotypes only relevant when you look at eg movies or television in aggregate? Once again, the claim that "it's justified by the story" does not actually address the criticism.

So, to you, saving a woman (in a story) is inherently bad. Am i getting this right?

The problem is not that "saving a woman" is a common plot device but "saving a woman" itself is the problem, like racism.

 

[Fugu]

Not that TP is the height of writing or representation. But you, like Sarkeesian, were quick to roll it uncritically into the trope to say "she's not the hero, she's a damsel; must be disempowering, give her a sword." I disagree, and find that way of thinking to be a problem.

How do you think the scene where Zelda has to surrender would go down if the protagonist was there instead? Does Link not also worry about his people? How does the game go by with Zelda getting stuck in this situation (despite being the bearer of the triforce of wisdom) once and Link having this problem never, despite (by your analysis) being pigheaded and foolish?

I think the issue here is that you're expecting me to read a lot more into a game with a razor thin plot than I am. Have you played the other Zelda games? They really inform how irrelevant and temporal the the characters themselves are. The franchise has, for the most part, a revolving door plot.

EDIT: No, I'm not calling non-violent protest an error. I'm calling losing control of her kingdom to the point where she is forced to surrender an error.

 

[unbias]

How do you think the scene where Zelda has to surrender would go down if the protagonist was there instead? Does Link not also worry about his people? How does the game go by with Zelda getting stuck in this situation (despite being the bearer of the triforce of wisdom) once and Link having this problem never, despite (by your analysis) being pigheaded and foolish?

I think the issue here is that you're expecting me to read a lot more into a game with a razor thin plot than I am. Have you played the other Zelda games? They really inform how irrelevant and temporal the the characters themselves are. The franchise has, for the most part, a revolving door plot.

EDIT: No, I'm not calling non-violent protest an error. I'm calling losing control of her kingdom to the point where she is forced to surrender an error.

Eh, I think there is so little of value in the plot of a zelda, that it is literally all up to your mentality at the time you see it. It is why men and women across the board can have such differing opinions about mario and zelda, specifically when talking about this. There is so little there that you fill in the gaps with your own preconceptions. Which is probably why I dislike Zelda games so much, I refuse to fill in the gaps.

 

[hachi]

And you once again completely avoid what I've consistently been saying in this thread, that "but it's justified by the story" does not invalidate criticism of negative characterizations, nor does something you consider a positive characterization negate criticism of negative ones.

I'll acknowledge your consistency; but I addressed this point quite a while back, and at this juncture I can do little more for your comprehension. What I'm describing has nothing to do with justification by the story. I've neither said nor implied: "the story explains the need for a weak character." No, I'm arguing instead that you are incorrect about what constitutes empowerment to begin with, and that this underlying problem is what leads Sarkeesian's analysis awry.

You speak of invalidating criticism time and again, yet all you have done is to quickly dismiss any critique of your own viewpoint out of hand: if one gets into the details of a case, you will claim avoidance of the larger problem; if one disagrees with the assumptions made about agency, you characterize it as a dismissal of all critique. Not particularly productive.

 

[Fugu]

Eh, I think there is so litter of value in the plot of a zelda, that it is literally all up to your mentality at the time you see it. It is why men and women across the board can have such differing opinions about mario and zelda, specifically when talking about this. there is so little there that you fill in the gaps with your own preconceptions. Which is probably why I dislike Zelda games so much, I refuse to fill in the gaps.

I think it suffers from the opposite problem based on the same information. While I agree that the plot is pretty thin, I think the issue it produces is that there's not really that much room for interpretation unless you start inventing characteristics that aren't really expressed in the games themselves.

I love the Zelda games because they're fun. I couldn't care less about plot in videogames for the most part. I play them in spite of their role as a small part of a rather large sexist canon in videogame writing.

 

[unbias]

I think it suffers from the opposite problem based on the same information. While I agree that the plot is pretty thin, I think the issue it produces is that there's not really that much room for interpretation unless you start inventing characteristics that aren't really expressed in the games themselves.

I love the Zelda games because they're fun. I couldn't care less about plot in videogames for the most part. I play them in spite of their role as a small part of a rather large sexist canon in videogame writing.

I think you are reading way to much into Zelda to be able to pull any "theme" from zelda outside of the gameplay and aesthetics. I just think it is a easy soapbox because of how little is there. Then again, I think most of the games are shit. I would rather play Darkstalkers any day of the week if I wanted a Zelda game.

 

[darkpower]

I think the main issue that Anita had in her video is that she comes off as more of a radical feminist than anything else, and the people defending her without just cause are making that worse.

I've been looking into this, and I finally realized that there is a term used to describe certain things. There are different camps of feminism that, while they all believe in a similar goal, they have different definitions of what counts as gender (in)equality and suppression, and how we go to achieve it.

With radical feminists (which became popular in the 1960s during the Women's Right Movement but has become more controversial in recent years), you have the hatred for the patriarchy, and thus believe that separate laws and statutes need to be put into place for specific classes of people. They seem to be more of the conservative form of feminists (they condemn things like BDSM).

What my issue was with Anita (other than she got many things about the games she was bringing up factually wrong, as if she never played the games she was talking about) is that she should've looked at some games thought an individualism feminism viewpoint, as well.

Individualism feminism, or ifeminism, is becoming rather popular in recent years but still not as well known as some of the other camps. It's goal is still to crush gender roles and inequality, but they don't think in the way of class, but rather think in the way of free will. Like, say, if a woman chooses to dress in skimpy clothes, then no one should stop them from doing so, but the woman should accept responsibility when someone calls them, say, a slut for dressing that way. They don't believe in, say, voting a woman into office just because of their gender, but rather on their merits and qualifications.

Actually, let me give you the link to the person that people champion as the main voice of such a camp, Wendy McElroy: http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy11.html .

Thing about it is, it's ifeminism that could drive some of these cases. Anita is too collective in labeling things instead of examining each act of abduction as a case by case basis. I think what KiteTales was trying to get out was that the collective nature that Anita brought forth the argument wasn't fitting for such a discussion.

As for why she mentioned the business thing about Mario, think about it. Why do you think they keep going to that simple formula? Think about at what point in time the first SMB came out: during the fallout of the video game crash of 1985 (not to mention back when "girls don't play games" was the common quote). The game basically saved the entire gaming industry from disaster, using that DiD trope, because it also had simple gameplay that people didn't need to take years to understand what they were supposed to do ("keep it simple, stupid"). Given that, they go back to that formula, and Mario continues to be one of Nintendo's best selling franchises, and has that tag of savior to the game industry to that. As long as people keep buying the games with the formula in it, Nintendo will not see any reason to fix something that's not broken. Yes, we would like a change to the formula at some point, but I'd rather Nintendo do something like that with care and make a game that we would want to play rather than rush some cheap shovelware out there just because.

But yeah, I think it's just that Anita failed to show any intelligence to what she was talking about, and that the subject, while good to bring up, deserved a much better speaking head to make the points.

 

[Tylahedras]

having a female protagonist is a "media inflated topic?"

are you even listening to yourself?

We have binders full of female protagonists waiting for next gen.

 

[Fugu]

I think you are reading way to much into Zelda to be able to pull any "theme" from zelda outside of the gameplay and aesthetics. I just think it is a easy soapbox because of how little is there. Then again, I think most of the games are shit. I would rather play Darkstalkers any day of the week if I wanted a Zelda game.

The fact that Zelda is a woman and not a fancy rock when she serves no purpose (that could not also be served by a fancy rock) in most of the games she's in is not something that can be ignored when discussing Zelda as part of a greater trend.

I think the main issue that Anita had in her video is that she comes off as more of a radical feminist than anything else, and the people defending her without just cause are making that worse.

Look, I've met radical feminists. Anita is not a radical feminist. She's not a separatist feminist. She's not a militant feminist. She's not an anarchist feminist. She's just a feminist who makes youtube videos.

 

[Stet]

I guarantee that Anita is nothing like a radical feminist.

 

[Shinta]

I've seen KiteTales in the past. She's great, and makes very fair, logical arguments. Going to have to check this out now.

I guarantee that Anita is nothing like a radical feminist.

Is that a money back guarantee?

 

[unbias]

The fact that Zelda is a woman and not a fancy rock when she serves no purpose in most of the games she's in is not something that can be ignored when discussing Zelda as part of a greater trend.

The reason it is not a rock, is because saving a rock isnt a constant in literature... I'm not seeing how Zelda being the political hostage is anything more then that. The only real trend that I can see be formulated is that women in leading roles don't make publishers as much money, so they don't do it.

I mean, getting rid of the Zelda trope(at this point you could argue it is its own cliche) isnt going to get more women leads or anything like that, and it wouldn't really make a social statement, other then something comes across as somewhat spiteful of an incredibly worthless story trope, in regards to Zelda.

 

[CambriaRising]

Showed my wife Anita's video, she didn't agree with it.

Showed her this one, and she agreed with it.

That's good enough for me.

 

[unbias]

Look, I've met radical feminists. Anita is not a radical feminist. She's not a separatist feminist. She's not a militant feminist. She's not an anarchist feminist. She's just a feminist who makes youtube videos.

Just about anyone who isn't a feminist, when they see someone use patriarchy in their critique of a game, normally will be considered a radical.

 

[Fugu]

The reason it is not a rock, is because saving a rock isnt a constant in literature... I'm not seeing how Zelda being the political hostage is anything more then that. The only real trend that I can see be formulated is that women in leading roles don't make publishers as much money, so they don't do it.

I mean, getting rid of the Zelda trope(at this point you could argue it is its own cliche) isnt going to get more women leads or anything like that, and it wouldn't really make a social statement, other then something comes across as somewhat spiteful of an incredibly worthless story trope, in regards to Zelda.

Right, but a strong male saving an ineffective princess is. A sexist constant. We should be striving to reduce the use of said sexist constants. Not just because they're sexist, but because they're also boring.

I would really like to see a game about Zelda/Sheik. That's an interesting character to make a game out of.

Just about anyone who isn't a feminist, when they see someone use patriarchy in their critique of a game, normally will be considered a radical.

As a feminist, the term "radical feminist" used to describe a regular person is one of my big red flags to tell me that I'm probably not going to agree with that person on too many things.

 

[unbias]

Right, but a strong male saving an ineffective princess is. A sexist constant. We should be striving to reduce the use of said sexist constants. Not just because they're sexist, but because they're also boring.

I would really like to see a game about Zelda/Sheik. That's an interesting character to make a game out of.


As a feminist, the term "radical feminist" used to describe a regular person is one of my big red flags to tell me that I'm probably not going to agree with that person on too many things.

Well ya, if you don't believe in the patriarchy, you literally are part of the problem(according to the philosophy). It's why youtube right now is having constant spats between pro gender equality/anti gender roles vs feminists, patriarchy is integral to the philosophy.

 

[wildfire]

Just about anyone who isn't a feminist, when they see someone use patriarchy in their critique of a game, normally will be considered a radical.

*blinks*

Since when?

 

[KojiKnight]

I would really like to see a game about Zelda/Sheik. That's an interesting character to make a game out of.

I'm definitely okay with this. But can we at least agree that the game needs to be more than a gender swapped zelda game where the princess is now rescuing the "hero"?

 

[unbias]

*blinks*

Since when?

Since always? Patriarchy theory has always been controversial.

 

[royalan]

I think the main issue that Anita had in her video is that she comes off as more of a radical feminist than anything else, and the people defending her without just cause are making that worse.

I've been looking into this, and I finally realized that there is a term used to describe certain things. There are different camps of feminism that, while they all believe in a similar goal, they have different definitions of what counts as gender (in)equality and suppression, and how we go to achieve it.

With radical feminists (which became popular in the 1960s during the Women's Right Movement but has become more controversial in recent years), you have the hatred for the patriarchy, and thus believe that separate laws and statutes need to be put into place for specific classes of people. They seem to be more of the conservative form of feminists (they condemn things like BDSM).

What my issue was with Anita (other than she got many things about the games she was bringing up factually wrong, as if she never played the games she was talking about) is that she should've looked at some games thought an individualism feminism viewpoint, as well.

Individualism feminism, or ifeminism, is becoming rather popular in recent years but still not as well known as some of the other camps. It's goal is still to crush gender roles and inequality, but they don't think in the way of class, but rather think in the way of free will. Like, say, if a woman chooses to dress in skimpy clothes, then no one should stop them from doing so, but the woman should accept responsibility when someone calls them, say, a slut for dressing that way. They don't believe in, say, voting a woman into office just because of their gender, but rather on their merits and qualifications.

Actually, let me give you the link to the person that people champion as the main voice of such a camp, Wendy McElroy: http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy11.html .

Thing about it is, it's ifeminism that could drive some of these cases. Anita is too collective in labeling things instead of examining each act of abduction as a case by case basis. I think what KiteTales was trying to get out was that the collective nature that Anita brought forth the argument wasn't fitting for such a discussion.

As for why she mentioned the business thing about Mario, think about it. Why do you think they keep going to that simple formula? Think about at what point in time the first SMB came out: during the fallout of the video game crash of 1985 (not to mention back when "girls don't play games" was the common quote). The game basically saved the entire gaming industry from disaster, using that DiD trope, because it also had simple gameplay that people didn't need to take years to understand what they were supposed to do ("keep it simple, stupid"). Given that, they go back to that formula, and Mario continues to be one of Nintendo's best selling franchises, and has that tag of savior to the game industry to that. As long as people keep buying the games with the formula in it, Nintendo will not see any reason to fix something that's not broken. Yes, we would like a change to the formula at some point, but I'd rather Nintendo do something like that with care and make a game that we would want to play rather than rush some cheap shovelware out there just because.

But yeah, I think it's just that Anita failed to show any intelligence to what she was talking about, and that the subject, while good to bring up, deserved a much better speaking head to make the points.

People keep referencing some mysterious group that's "blindly" defending Anita, but I'm seeing no sign of them here. I think everyone speaking up for Anita and against this video are doing so with very sound (or at least thought out) arguments.

Also, I think you're incorrect in labeling Anita a radical feminist. I don't see where she's arguing for a separate set of rules to be used in governing how women are portrayed in video games.

I mean, Anita herself might identify as a radical feminist, but I don't think the points she's introduced so far in this series are from that perspective.

 

[Fugu]

I'm definitely okay with this. But can we at least agree that the game needs to be more than a gender swapped zelda game where the princess is now rescuing the "hero"?

I think it can be either. I don't see why Link can't be female (neither does the internet; don't google this). I also don't see why Zelda can't be a different kind of protagonist.

 

[Karsticles]

I think it can be either. I don't see why Link can't be female (neither does the internet; don't google this). I also don't see why Zelda can't be a different kind of protagonist.

I would totally dig an Okami-like Zelda game where Zelda is the main character and you draw spells using the Wii Remote.

 

[Kinyou]

I think it can be either. I don't see why Link can't be female (neither does the internet; don't google this). I also don't see why Zelda can't be a different kind of protagonist.

Well when you just turn Link into a female then you'd have the "Mrs. Male character" trope that Anita will address in one of her next videos.

 

[royalan]

I think the damning thing about Zelda is that there's so much lore surrounding her and so much room for adventures NOT starring Link within the world Nintendo's created that they really could make a game where she is the player.

I mean, not only there huge chunks of the game where Zelda is off doing something else (would have LOVED a Sheik game), but there is so much of the series' lore that happens when there IS no Link around yet.

A Zelda-focused Zelda game seems like such a no-brainer you really do have to wonder why Nintendo hasn't done it yet and what that might say about their intentions with her character.

 

[darkpower]

I guarantee that Anita is nothing like a radical feminist.

People keep referencing some mysterious group that's "blindly" defending Anita, but I'm seeing no sign of them here. I think everyone speaking up for Anita and against this video are doing so with very sound (or at least thought out) arguments.

Also, I think you're incorrect in labeling Anita a radical feminist. I don't see where she's arguing for a separate set of rules to be used in governing how women are portrayed in video games.

I mean, Anita herself might identify as a radical feminist, but I don't think the points she's introduced so far in this series are from that perspective.

She defines things in class. Look how she never brings up certain situations that the damsels get into when they do get kidnapped in her examples.

- Zelda is blindsided at a few points, and she makes the choice to reveal herself to Link in these times, thereby choosing to make herself known to the enemy and thus risk being abducted by someone who might have more magical power than anyone else in that game's universe at that given time.
- Marian, if you notice (never mind how primitive the beginning scene is in Double Dragon given the tech back then), is outnumbered: four men, one with a machine gun. Even if she does try to fight back (assuming she knows self defense), what are the chances that she'll just get shot (which is sort of what happened in DD2: she's murdered). Therefore, given the alternative in the first DD would be (she dies, which you might be able to say that she did try to fight in DD2 that led to her fate), you could say that it was a good decision for her to not try to fight.

You can make the case that some women get periled (however you see them get into trouble) because they made a choice to put themselves into a position in which danger is present. And that is what ifeminism is about: the freedom to make that choice and to accept the dangers, responsibilities, and repercussions that come from said choice as an equal part of society instead of class roles playing a part in the repercussions.

Anita does not take this free choice mechanism into account when judging any of the examples she presents. "Male strength trumps female strength" seems to be the only course of thinking that Anita brings up to judge, and she does this extremely poorly to boot. She doesn't think about if a man were in that same scenario would he have just as much trouble? She does mention this to some extent in her video, but it's done in such a way to show that in games, a man ALWAYS "has a way", even when that man might not have the tools or experience to be able to (and thus, can't and won't without outside help). She puts an unilateral viewpoint to something that has varying opinions to it without addressing the other viewpoints with equal fairness.

 

[Spinluck]

This girl makes good points, but is also biased like Anita. Anita blatantly ignored facts, and cherry picked examples that will back up her points.

There are girl gamers who think because they don't see the sexism in games, that somehow validates there not being much of it because they are a girl. But it doesn't, if you cannot see it, you are blind.

I guarantee that Anita is nothing like a radical feminist.

People here think she's a radical feminist? Lol.

I don't agree with her on everything, but a good amount of her arguments are pretty valid.

I think the $155,000 is what people are actually upset about, whether they want to admit it or not.
I mean, look at the thread title.

 

[Fugu]

She defines things in class. Look how she never brings up certain situations that the damsels get into when they do get kidnapped in her examples.

- Zelda is blindsided at a few points, and she makes the choice to reveal herself to Link in these times, thereby choosing to make herself known to the enemy and thus risk being abducted by someone who might have more magical power than anyone else in that game's universe at that given time.
- Marian, if you notice (never mind how primitive the beginning scene is in Double Dragon given the tech back then), is outnumbered: four men, one with a machine gun. Even if she does try to fight back (assuming she knows self defense), what are the chances that she'll just get shot (which is sort of what happened in DD2: she's murdered). Therefore, given the alternative in the first DD would be (she dies, which you might be able to say that she did try to fight in DD2 that led to her fate), you could say that it was a good decision for her to not try to fight.

You can make the case that some women get periled (however you see them get into trouble) because they made a choice to put themselves into a position in which danger is present. And that is what ifeminism is about: the freedom to make that choice and to accept the dangers, responsibilities, and repercussions that come from said choice as an equal part of society instead of class roles playing a part in the repercussions.

Anita does not take this free choice mechanism into account when judging any of the examples she presents. "Male strength trumps female strength" seems to be the only course of thinking that Anita brings up to judge, and she does this extremely poorly to boot. She doesn't think about if a man were in that same scenario would he have just as much trouble? She does mention this to some extent in her video, but it's done in such a way to show that in games, a man ALWAYS "has a way", even when that man might not have the tools or experience to be able to (and thus, can't and won't without outside help). She puts an unilateral viewpoint to something that has varying opinions to it without addressing the other viewpoints with equal fairness.

No, because Double Dragon is all about men beating up four guys at once. Men are almost never put in a situation of weakness; if they are, they are later put in a jailbreak situation.

 

[darkpower]

No, because Double Dragon is all about men beating up four guys at once.

Who are also skilled martial artists with experience about how to handle those kinds of odds. If you notice in my post, I also questioned in if Marian had any martial arts training. Since she seemed to have not had any, you can't suspect that she would be able to handle that sort of situation. A man with little to no combat/fighting training wouldn't know what to do, either.

Plus, as I said, you could've theorized that by DD2, Marian could've had some sort of training and might've been able to hold her own in some situations, but she might've brought a knife to a gun fight, as you might say (yeah, I keep bringing up DD2. So sue me: it was the superior game in the DD series...at least the NES version was due to better graphics and deeper gameplay).

Plus, you talk about when the player takes control of the character, which you then bring up a very different topic, which is character strength vs. player skill level.

Men are almost never put in a situation of weakness; if they are, they are later put in a jailbreak situation.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DistressedDude

 

[frequency]

All these video game women that "choose" to be put in dangerous situations or "choose" to not be trained in martial arts or whatever. That's a terrible excuse.

These video game women are not real women with real thoughts and decisions. They are fictional characters written by someone. Any "choice" they have is forced on them by the author. They were written as they are. The writers could just have easily written Marian to be able to defend herself. But they didn't. They wrote Billy and Jimmy as being able to defend themselves.

I don't mean to call you out darkpower. But I have to say something. In the two threads about this you've been quick to defend a woman's "choice" to be weaker or to dress super sexy or whatever. But the moment someone brings up the alternative "choice" to be strong and on equal footing with their male counterparts, you've called them radical feminists or accused them of wanting women to be more capable than men. So what it looks like is that your support of feminism only goes as far as women making a choice for the status quo rather than to improve our standing. Please tell me I am mistaken.

 

[Fugu]

Who are also skilled martial artists with experience about how to handle those kinds of odds. If you notice in my post, I also questioned in if Marian had any martial arts training. Since she seemed to have not had any, you can't suspect that she would be able to handle that sort of situation. A man with little to no combat/fighting training wouldn't know what to do, either.

Plus, as I said, you could've theorized that by DD2, Marian could've had some sort of training and might've been able to hold her own in some situations, but she might've brought a knife to a gun fight, as you might say (yeah, I keep bringing up DD2. So sue me: it was the superior game in the DD series...at least the NES version was due to better graphics and deeper gameplay).

Plus, you talk about when the player takes control of the character, which you then bring up a very different topic, which is character strength vs. player skill level.



http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DistressedDude

Right, because it's just happenstance that the male characters know martial arts and the female character is worthless. The premise of the debate is that it seems that in most videogames, the male knows how to fight his way out of a problem and the female doesn't.

 

[darkpower]

All these video game women that "choose" to be put in dangerous situations or "choose" to not be trained in martial arts or whatever. That's a terrible excuse.

These video game women are not real women with real thoughts and decisions. They are fictional characters written by someone. Any "choice" they have is forced on them by the author. They were written as they are. The writers could just have easily written Marian to be able to defend herself. But they didn't. They wrote Billy and Jimmy as being able to defend themselves.

But would you agree, though, that a female would be written to be someone that can make their own choices, and accept what said choices can bring to them should they choose the wrong choice, which would be the same as if a man would make a similar choice? This would be writing believable characters. You wouldn't make all women, for instance, be able to defend themselves because some women in the real world cannot, or because that is not within the bounds of the type of character, male or female, that you're trying to create (and by contrast, you wouldn't make all women weak by nature, just so we're clear, because that wouldn't help in making believable characters, either). I'm not saying that there isn't any woman capable of defending herself, but factoring in human nature is a key element, I think, to dictate certain aspects of society. Some women are strong in society, can think rationally, or what have you. Other women, however, don't have their head on straight, might be fragile, etc. This is the same with men, too.

So when a game creator makes a character, they might not necessarily be thinking about gender roles, but the character as an individual. What is the characters strengths and weaknesses, their fears, what attitude they bring forth, etc. They might not be thinking through class/gender roles. Women, as much as men, are able to make rational choices based upon a given situation, and can come in various shapes and sizes and quality, and as thus, they can be subjected to the same consequences that men would if they made a wrong choice.

Again, this is what ifeminism is. The goal is gender equality, but the definition is different: end suppression, but don't make a class out to be special, but rather treat them as individuals in society. Please, go read that page if you want to know more. The more I think about it, the more I think I've been within that group of feminism. I don't know if you would agree with that sentiment or not (ifeminists and radicals have been at war with each other for a while now, so it's not like it's unheard of for some feminists to not exactly subscribe to that form of it, at least not right away since it's a fairly new view), but I would hope you'd keep an open mind about it.

Though I'm interested that you're putting forth fantasy vs. reality, in which reality doesn't dictate fantasy. I'm curious and sincerely interested to learn what your reasoning is in invoking that aspect into this discussion since I haven't seen that brought into the debate yet.

 

[APF]

Will never see eye to eye on that. Tropes in stories are used because ease of use and how relatable able it is due to the amount of literature on the subject.

So are stereotypes and other easy characterizations. They're used because they're part of the cultural fabric, and don't have to be fleshed-out because they're iconic representations of ideas you have already been exposed to. That's why basic storylines like "rescue the princess" were used so heavily in early games (and movies, etc), because the creators had not (have not) mastered the art form enough to understand how to convey complex ideas otherwise.

You cant compare it to racism, because it isn't a specific marginalization

That's the key point that gaming's anti-feminists don't want to acknowledge, that this trope / other similar tropes are laden with anachronistic ideas about gender roles at the very least, and objectification / disempowerment on the other end, that you don't really think about because it's part of the cultural fabric discussed above. That's why despite the tropes vs women video saying "nothing new," it's actually pretty important to say: "hey this is why this trope exists and why it resonates, what it's based on and the ideas it's reflecting," even if you don't really think about it that way and it wasn't the creator's intentions.

So, to you, saving a woman (in a story) is inherently bad. Am i getting this right?

No, that's a mischaracterization / straw man.

What I'm describing has nothing to do with justification by the story. I've neither said nor implied: "the story explains the need for a weak character."

You just took a segment of my argument in order to attack a straw man, and I don't know if I can do any more for your comprehension. The actual point I made is: something you consider a positive characteristic does not invalidate criticism for negative characteristics, nor does "but the story justifies it." Both are just diversions to handwave away justified criticism, just like your continuous loops away from and back to this point.

 

[frequency]

But would you agree, though, that a female would be written to be someone that can make their own choices, and accept what said choices can bring to them should they choose the wrong choice, which would be the same as if a man would make a similar choice? This would be writing believable characters. You wouldn't make all women, for instance, be able to defend themselves because some women in the real world cannot, or because that is not within the bounds of the type of character, male or female, that you're trying to create (and by contrast, you wouldn't make all women weak by nature, just so we're clear, because that wouldn't help in making believable characters, either). I'm not saying that there isn't any woman capable of defending herself, but factoring in human nature is a key element, I think, to dictate certain aspects of society. Some women are strong in society, can think rationally, or what have you. Other women, however, don't have their head on straight, might be fragile, etc. This is the same with men, too.

So when a game creator makes a character, they might not necessarily be thinking about gender roles, but the character as an individual. What is the characters strengths and weaknesses, their fears, what attitude they bring forth, etc. They might not be thinking through class/gender roles. Women, as much as men, are able to make rational choices based upon a given situation, and can come in various shapes and sizes and quality, and as thus, they can be subjected to the same consequences that men would if they made a wrong choice.

Again, this is what ifeminism is. The goal is gender equality, but the definition is different: end suppression, but don't make a class out to be special, but rather treat them as individuals in society. Please, go read that page if you want to know more. The more I think about it, the more I think I've been within that group of feminism. I don't know if you would agree with that sentiment or not (ifeminists and radicals have been at war with each other for a while now, so it's not like it's unheard of for some feminists to not exactly subscribe to that form of it, at least not right away since it's a fairly new view), but I would hope you'd keep an open mind about it.

Though I'm interested that you're putting forth fantasy vs. reality, in which reality doesn't dictate fantasy. I'm curious and sincerely interested to learn what your reasoning is in invoking that aspect into this discussion since I haven't seen that brought into the debate yet.

Your argument holds if things were equal. If there were women represented in as many ways as men are. But there is an extreme imbalance. There is no inherent issue when a women is written as weak or even as a sexual prize. But there is an issue when the vast majority of women are written in such ways.

We've discussed fantasy vs. reality a little bit in the closed thread. It was a somewhat common argument that it's realistic. "Princesses aren't generally trained to fight." But at the same time, a plumber that eats flowers to throw fireballs is given a pass. It's inequality in that only the women are subject to reality.

And so it is true that there are weak women who wouldn't be able to defend themselves against four armed villains. But it is also true of men. The vast majority of men would not be able to defend themselves in such a situation either. But the vast majority of men are written as being able to. And the vast majority of women are not.

We stand up for equality and things may appear radical at times to the opposition. But that is because the imbalance is extreme. And perhaps a radical rebalancing is what is required for equality.

 

[darkpower]

I don't mean to call you out darkpower. But I have to say something. In the two threads about this you've been quick to defend a woman's "choice" to be weaker or to dress super sexy or whatever. But the moment someone brings up the alternative "choice" to be strong and on equal footing with their male counterparts, you've called them radical feminists or accused them of wanting women to be more capable than men. So what it looks like is that your support of feminism only goes as far as women making a choice for the status quo rather than to improve our standing. Please tell me I am mistaken.

Like I said, you should go read the link I provided. It's an article from someone who ifeminists champion as probably one of the main thinkers of the "camp" (for lack of a better term), Wendy McElroy. In it, she does bring up the main aspect behind what ifeminism is and how it differs with radical feminism, and how they are at odds because of their way of thinking and dealing with gender inequality.

I hope I can describe this well, but it has nothing to do with status quo. What ifeminism is saying is that if you want to dress "sexy" or what have you, then that is within your right because you are given that right just as much as a man has the same right to dress how he wants under the Constitution. However, if you do not want to dress that way and instead want to dress conservatively, then that, too, is your right. However, the main aspect to this is that, with the equality comes responsibility to be able to be judged based upon your merits and not because of your gender.

Like, if you (I assume you're female) run for office, and another woman blindly votes for you because your a woman without examining your stance on things like foreign policy, social issues, economic issues, etc., then it helps no one because they are treating a minority class as special because they feel obligated to support the minority class. Now, if I see you on the ballot, and I see that you, say, completely are against gay marriage and go on a rampage about it on your campaign trail, I might vote for your male opponent because I know that he has the same beliefs I do and he's proven that through his voting record. So I'm voting for him based upon his track record rather than his gender. And excuse the crude nature of the example, but this is the best way to state this point.

This is what I think you might call being gender blind, not seeing gender roles but rather individual roles. If I were to believe, as you said, in the status quo you provided, then the status quo, by what ifeminists believe, should be true to everyone, man or woman.

In games, this can be achieved and has been achieved, and you don't have to look far for the proof in that: Tomb Raider. They created Lara as a real human being, with real fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and gender roles are thrown out the window. She has real flaws and real strengths, and as you progress through the game, she possesses real capabilities to learn and adapt. And she has her own way to express the fear, and as she progresses, adapts ways to handle her fear and to be able to get over her fears. This is an example of a female character in a game that showcases a firm nature of how human nature comes into play.

Again, I would suggest you read McElroy's essay on that. It's really worth the time.

 

[frequency]

Like I said, you should go read the link I provided. It's an article from someone who ifeminists champion as probably one of the main thinkers of the "camp" (for lack of a better term), Wendy McElroy. In it, she does bring up the main aspect behind what ifeminism is and how it differs with radical feminism, and how they are at odds because of their way of thinking and dealing with gender inequality.

I hope I can describe this well, but it has nothing to do with status quo. What ifeminism is saying is that if you want to dress "sexy" or what have you, then that is within your right because you are given that right just as much as a man has the same right to dress how he wants under the Constitution. However, if you do not want to dress that way and instead want to dress conservatively, then that, too, is your right. However, the main aspect to this is that, with the equality comes responsibility to be able to be judged based upon your merits and not because of your gender.

Like, if you (I assume you're female) run for office, and another woman blindly votes for you because your a woman without examining your stance on things like foreign policy, social issues, economic issues, etc., then it helps no one because they are treating a minority class as special because they feel obligated to support the minority class. Now, if I see you on the ballot, and I see that you, say, completely are against gay marriage and go on a rampage about it on your campaign trail, I might vote for your male opponent because I know that he has the same beliefs I do and he's proven that through his voting record. So I'm voting for him based upon his track record rather than his gender. And excuse the crude nature of the example, but this is the best way to state this point.

This is what I think you might call being gender blind, not seeing gender roles but rather individual roles. If I were to believe, as you said, in the status quo you provided, then the status quo, by what ifeminists believe, should be true to everyone, man or woman.

In games, this can be achieved and has been achieved, and you don't have to look far for the proof in that: Tomb Raider. They created Lara as a real human being, with real fear, uncertainty, and doubt, and gender roles are thrown out the window. She has real flaws and real strengths, and as you progress through the game, she possesses real capabilities to learn and adapt. And she has her own way to express the fear, and as she progresses, adapts ways to handle her fear and to be able to get over her fears. This is an example of a female character in a game that showcases a firm nature of how human nature comes into play.

Again, I would suggest you read McElroy's essay on that. It's really worth the time.

I'm sorry. I missed the link. Can you post it again please? Or PM or whatever you prefer.

I would also like to say that it is true there actually exist many games we can point to as an example of good representation of women. But there are many more that are bad representations or simply no representation. And the existence of some games does not disqualify the claim of inequality when we look at the industry as a whole.

 

[remnant]

Look, I've met radical feminists. Anita is not a radical feminist. She's not a separatist feminist. She's not a militant feminist. She's not an anarchist feminist. She's just a feminist who makes youtube videos.

If Anita is the standard for a normal feminist, than something is off right now.

Showed my wife Anita's video, she didn't agree with it.

Showed her this one, and she agreed with it.

That's good enough for me.

You're wife is just blind

 

[patapuf]

No, that's a mischaracterization / straw man.

Then explain to me what about saving a DiD is bad other than the fact that it's an overused plot point in games?

"Women have been historically depicted as weak and in need of saving" does not mean that stories with that plot point are autmatically bad. Nor is useful for analizing a female character in a specific game/story.

And it's especially useless when that character doesn't even have a single line of dialogue (like Peach).

 

[darkpower]

Your argument holds if things were equal. If there were women represented in as many ways as men are. But there is an extreme imbalance. There is no inherent issue when a women is written as weak or even as a sexual prize. But there is an issue when the vast majority of women are written in such ways.

We've discussed fantasy vs. reality a little bit in the closed thread. It was a somewhat common argument that it's realistic. "Princesses aren't generally trained to fight." But at the same time, a plumber that eats flowers to throw fireballs is given a pass. It's inequality in that only the women are subject to reality.

And so it is true that there are weak women who wouldn't be able to defend themselves against four armed villains. But it is also true of men. The vast majority of men would not be able to defend themselves in such a situation either. But the vast majority of men are written as being able to. And the vast majority of women are not.

We fight for equality and things may appear radical at times. But that is because the imbalance is extreme. And perhaps a radical rebalancing is what is required for equality.

You have a point when too many female characters that are written in that manner becomes cliche and just boring to see.

However, this is also when you get into a discussion that sucks ass because none of us wishing for gender equality don't really want to admit it. Thing is, it's a simple formula that does sell games because it's a storyline that's never too complicated for anyone to get. I'm not saying it's the trope alone, as other aspects of a game need to play a role. However, when you see that Mario, a game that basically is the trope namer, saved the game industry by employing such a story, it's hard to argue that it's a formula that, for them at least, works for them. Why change something when what you're going with continues to sell? Yes, there are gullible people out there (good lord, why do you think we get annual Call of Duty games now?), but as long as game companies see that something continues to work, they will keep going back to it because it makes them money. Yes, it's not something that I like, either, but it's something that, unfortunately, is installed right now.

I don't know, though, if a huge change to the formula would work for a game like Mario that has made a killing off of it. SPP was a game that changed the roles, and I'm not sure how to describe such a role reversal, but (and this may sound weird), but if it wasn't Mario and it was another game entirely, then I would be for a radical change of pace, but I think Mario is a weird case in that the whole success of that game has been built around the "keep it simple, stupid" style of gameplay: simple learning curve, simple story to understand (hell, they even poke fun of how many times she does get kidnapped in some of the games; they might just think she's too dumb to get the Mushroom Kingdom fitted with nukes for all we know), simple gameplay. It's something that Mario games have down, and I think more care would have to be done for such a radical change.

I think this is because I think of them tossing around the idea of Zelda being a playable character in a future game. Holy fuck, that would be awesome! I remember getting a Nintendo Comics System book when I was younger. In it was a Zelda comic, and she was fucking bad ass, especially with a bow and arrow, without losing her identity (Link even gets his cap shot off, with him claiming that Zelda "never misses"...was she aiming for his HEAD?). Oh, don't I wish I could scan this comic now? I thought it was well done.

However, I think about the possibility of that, then I think to the audacity that was Zelda's Adventure. Yes, I would love more female protagonists. But, as with any game, I want it to be a game that would want to play because it's got good game design, and for the character to be relate-able and believable and not just thrown in there and it have poor design. Just defeats the purpose if the game she's in sucks. I would trust in Nintendo to make a quality game since I know they do make good games, but I want them to take their time with the games they do make and think things through like they would any game. Let them take all the time they need to to create a game with Zelda (or with any female protagonist) that is a quality product that presents a good, fair challenge and is clear or bugs and glitches. That will get more people to buy the game, and would greatly increase the chances that game developers will make more games with believable female leads in them. Making a game of low quality will not have anyone buy it, and in turn will tell game companies that such games are not worth making, and they will go back to the formula that seems to get us to where we are now.

 

[Dark Octave]

She forgot Adam from Streets of Rage was the kidnapped "victim" in SoR2 and not Blaze, the female playable character.

Adam was bad ass too.

 

[APF]

"Women have been historically depicted as weak and in need of saving" does not mean that stories with that plot point are autmatically bad. Nor is useful for analizing a female character in a specific game/story.

Well the objection isn't just that women have historically been depicted as weak; for more on that, why not just watch the tropes video all of this is sprouting around? Second, the point isn't that tropes or other cliches are inherently bad--although they are shortcuts / crutches and your writing will always be better if you try to avoid them--but rather that people should be aware of this historical pattern when they're considering whether to stop using their creative ability as writers to construct a plot point. So often anti-feminist gamers apologize for obvious laziness by saying, "oh but they didn't mean any of that, they weren't even thinking about the implications you're talking about." The point is, this is 2013. Maybe they should think about it. And thus the tropes videos and the discussion around it.

 

[darkpower]

I'm sorry. I missed the link. Can you post it again please? Or PM or whatever you prefer.

I would also like to say that it is true there actually exist many games we can point to as an example of good representation of women. But there are many more that are bad representations or simply no representation. And the existence of some games does not disqualify the claim of inequality when we look at the industry as a whole.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcelroy/mcelroy11.html

Want to warn you, though, that this is not only a newer form of feminism (I had to look long and hard through Google to finally find that this sort of camp within feminism exists, though I knew it had to somewhere), but there seems to be a feud brewing between them and radical feminists.

However, I think this is fine. Everyone has their own idea of what inequality actually is, and how we should achieve equality (and what the definition of equality is, as well). I don't know how well you'll agree with sentiments such as what McElroy brings up, but you will understand what I'm getting at more when you read through that. I think I've been identifying with that form of feminism, and to think that I didn't know there was a term for it.