Support NeoGAF

[bhlaab]

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.

People are upset about the money spent because it shows that a significant number of people care about sexism in games a significant amount. That makes it more difficult to dismiss and ignore as 'outlier whining'.

Why people feel so threatened by it int he first place is beyond me, however.

PS: The video in the OP is like that one kid in high school english grinding everything to a halt for 20 minutes trying to argue that Animal Farm is just a fairy tale about some talking animals. If you're going to put together a video essay 'debunking' feminist theory you should at least pick up a book and figure out what feminist theory is first.

 

[Shinta]

Finally watched it. Loved it. Really shows how misguided Anita's project is, how much its based on pre-conceived agendas and her personal perspective, and it's really just the tip of the iceberg.

I know she doesn't want it to be a critique of Anita, but it is, and it's a very solid one.

PS: The video in the OP is like that one kid in high school english grinding everything to a halt for 20 minutes trying to argue that Animal Farm is just a fairy tale about some talking animals. If you're going to put together a video essay 'debunking' feminist theory you should at least pick up a book and figure out what feminist theory is first.

You sound ridiculous, you know that right?

 

[patapuf]

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.

I agree with this but my original point was:


attacking individual characters/games especially if they are as simplistic as mario will not serve to enhance your point but devolve in pointless debate about wheter this particular case is really sexist or not.

The easiest - and best (imo) - way to make the point that something needs to change can simply be made by pulling some stats (an agregate) and showing the state of things today. It doesn't matter if Zelda is sexist as a character or how well she is written if out of a 100 games we have maybe 10 with meaningful female characters.

And one should also not forget that for a lot of games the story is meaningless and not worth talking about. Trying to apply standarts we use for books and movies for these games is not usefull for a meaningful discussion.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

I'm sorry but did anybody notice how she modded toon link in her avatar to look like a brunette girl

 

[bhlaab]

You sound ridiculous, you know that right?

Why's that.

 

[Shinta]

Why's that.

Where in the OP's video is she even critiquing feminism? Please point me to that part of the video.

 

[bhlaab]

Where in the OP's video is she even critiquing feminism? Please point me to that part of the video.

She's attempting to deflate Anita Sakrekskesn's arguments using BS red herring interpretations completely divorced from the scale of magnitude Sakrgresian is operating on: that is, the entire history of applied fiction versus "b-but Princess Toadstool is a strong political leader if you think about it!"

 

[Shinta]

She's attempting to deflate Anita Sakrekskesn's arguments using BS red herring interpretations completely divorced from the scale of magnitude Sakrgresian is operating on: that is, the entire history of applied fiction versus "b-but Princess Toadstool is a strong political leader if you think about it!"

So she's debating Anita then, not feminist theory?

I said point to where she is debunking feminist theory. You said she needs a book on it. What are you talking about?

 

[faceless007]

Can someone please try to summarize exactly what they think the argument being made in the reply video is? Because for all the talk about how it thoroughly dismantles Anita's video, I don't see any argument there beyond "There's more to Peach's and Zelda's character than being DiDs." Which is not only entirely irrelevant to Anita's argument, it implicitly concedes that Anita is correct in labeling Peach and Zelda as DiDs. So, uh, the best reply video you got is one that doesn't even contest Anita's main argument?

 

[APF]

attacking individual characters/games especially if they are as simplistic as mario will not serve to enhance your point but devolve in pointless debate about wheter this particular case is really sexist or not.

Oh god I agree with you there, and that's also why I'm not terribly interested in being pulled into that debate. But also note that few if any people are actually calling anything "sexist." Most (or at least myself) are saying folks might use devices like this less if they were aware of some of the cultural implications.

The easiest - and best (imo) - way to make the point that something needs to change can simply be made by pulling some stats (an agregate) and showing the state of things today. It doesn't matter if Zelda is sexist as a character or how well she is written if out of a 100 games we have maybe 10 with meaningful female characters.

I don't disagree, but isn't that the kind of discussion this tropes series is attempting to do? Set up a premise, discuss its use, see it's prevalence across the history of gaming? You can tally stats if you want to, but that seems like a meaningless distraction unless your point is to establish things are better now than they used to be. Which is fine and likely true, but it's also damning with faint praise.

And one should also not forget that for a lot of games the story is meaningless and not worth talking about. Trying to apply standarts we use for books and movies for these games is not usefull for a meaningful discussion.

I don't think that's a strong argument, especially when it's just as easy to say "the kingdom is in danger" as it is to say "the princess has been kidnapped." For example, you wouldn't excuse racist caricatures just because story "didn't matter" in some random kids game, right? We're not talking about standards of art, we're talking about cultural standards. Our standards as human beings.

 

[patapuf]

I don't disagree, but isn't that the kind of discussion this tropes series is attempting to do? Set up a premise, discuss its use, see it's prevalence across the history of gaming? You can tally stats if you want to, but that seems like a meaningless distraction unless your point is to establish things are better now than they used to be. Which is fine and likely true, but it's also damning with faint praise.

I like stats because they (at least to a point) take out the emotional side of the argument. If feel that in a topic as emotionally charged as this one it will work way better to raise awareness than attacking someones favourite games series. It also requires proper research to make a point and, just as important, to refute it.

I don't think that's a strong argument, especially when it's just as easy to say "the kingdom is in danger" as it is to say "the princess has been kidnapped." For example, you wouldn't excuse racist caricatures just because story "didn't matter" in some random kids game, right? We're not talking about standards of art, we're talking about cultural standards. Our standards as human beings.

I don't think the racist analogy works well as that is directly demeaning to a person wheras rescuing a princess is not. But i agree that trying not to use the trope should be encouraged.

 

[IHaveCandy]

Where did she do that?

The idea this this response is "more balanced" than Anita's is pretty funny: she spends the vast majority of time discussing Zelda and Peach (or rather, the surface level traits of the characters that rarely ever matter to the game's plots), followed by a montage of other examples to support her position (most of which are more obscure than Anita's). In other words, it's exactly the same argument structurally as Anita's, just with a wildly different interpretation and different examples. It's not more well-supported than Anita's; it's roughly equivalently supported. But the way she makes and presents her argument is almost identical, so it's kind of absurd to me that the presentation and structure of hers can be held up as any better.

But of course, everything that agrees with me = accurate and objective while everything that disagrees with me = biased and one-sided.

Excuse me, did I say the video in the OP was "more balanced"? I'm having a hard time finding a quote of me saying that. In fact, I'm having a hard time finding myself saying anything about the OP video at all. All I said is that Anita's videos are persuasive arguments dressed as open analysis. Nothing is wrong with making a persuasive argument, but don't misrepresent what it is.

 

[Shaanyboi]

Yes, that's who I'm talking about when I say she shows up to teach you stuff and then completely disappears. What's she doing in the interval? Does anyone care? Does it really matter?

Ruto comments on how Sheik saved her when you find her within the Water Temple. I can't recall if Impa said anything about her.

 

[APF]

I like stats because they (at least to a point) take out the emotional side of the argument.

Not really, but stat away? Compile stats about the DiD trope's use... I'm not sure how you tally "well-written" or "meaningful" without being "emotional" however.

I don't think the racist analogy works well as that is directly demeaning to a person

What? But who doesn't like fried chicken or watermelon?

 

[polyh3dron]

good video.

Its not that I dislike Anita I just hated how everyone automatically jumped to her side without any thought to the real subject matter. Its as if they were just clamoring for any cause to support.

You mean like they were trying to save a Damsel in Distress?

 

[Terrell]

My favourite part of this thread is that, in the beginning of her video, she says that it's not intended as a take-down of Sarkeesian, merely a counter-point.

What's the OP do? Use it as a take-down of Sarkeesian.

Brilliant.

 

[faceless007]

Excuse me, did I say the video in the OP was "more balanced"? I'm having a hard time finding a quote of me saying that. In fact, I'm having a hard time finding myself saying anything about the OP video at all.

My bad, the bit I wrote about "more balanced" was not addressed to you, even though it came after a quote; it was meant to be a separate point addressed to those in the thread who were saying that.

All I said is that Anita's videos are persuasive arguments dressed as open analysis. Nothing is wrong with making a persuasive argument, but don't misrepresent what it is.

Again, where does she do this? I suspect Anita would agree that her video is meant to be an argumentative essay. It's structured exactly the way we were all taught to write argumentative essays: form a thesis, then use examples and evidence to support it.

 

[IHaveCandy]

My bad, the bit I wrote about "more balanced" was not addressed to you, even though it came after a quote; it was meant to be a separate point addressed to those in the thread who were saying that.


Again, where does she do this? I suspect Anita would agree that her video is meant to be an argumentative essay. It's structured exactly the way we were all taught to write argumentative essays: form a thesis, then use examples and evidence to support it.

The premise of this whole video project was to analyze female tropes in video games. She did not introduce this project as a method of convincing the audience that female tropes are present and a negative thing. She basically said "I want to talk about the different tropes that represent women in video games and analyze their purpose and what they do for the content and the audience. I believe this project could help educate people in and out of gaming to better understand the gaming media as a whole." From her premise on the kickstarter, I would not have expected her to say "This trope is common and bad. Here is a list of games using this trope and why it is bad. See how bad it is?" It's agenda-based, not analysis-based.

 

[darkpower]

Again, where does she do this? I suspect Anita would agree that her video is meant to be an argumentative essay. It's structured exactly the way we were all taught to write argumentative essays: form a thesis, then use examples and evidence to support it.

The only problem with this is that you can't just ignore aspects of a game, or entire games, that you don't think fit a viewpoint that you want to believe to be true. It's been proven through her Bayonetta video that she can get things extremely wrong, to the point where you have to wonder if she played the games she's talking about or not (if she didn't play the game, how can she make a fair judgment on the game?). She gets things completely backwards about what happened with Starfox Adventures, for instance (things that a bit of research will tell you without ever playing the game).

The question is how much is she getting incorrect about the games, how much they are damaging her thesis on the subject, if she's cherry picking and then lying by implication to get to a biased outcome, is she just being careless, or something else altogether? From what some people have said on her college thesis, there's a consistency with her viewpoints not being supported well by her not getting the facts about the games she uses as examples straight, so how can we trust that she'll be here? This is not to say that she doesn't get things right, but these things are such common knowledge that if you got it wrong, no one would take you seriously (such as the story around SMB2).

 

[faceless007]

The only problem with this is that you can't just ignore aspects of a game, or entire games, that you don't think fit a viewpoint that you want to believe to be true.

For one thing, the sentence you wrote should apply equally if not moreso to Kite Tales' video, as she clearly ignores the basic recurring plots of Peach and Zelda's stories in favor of focusing on barely-mentioned ancillary plot details, and then presents a montage of her own selected examples. Her argument is practically identical structurally to Anita's. So why not take her to task for exactly the same form of argument?

But moreover, I feel like there's a serious disconnect in realistic expectations here. Because you aren't being specific, it's hard to know exactly what more you expect from her. It is literally impossible for Anita to create a comprehensive list of every video game ever, and classify them as to whether they fit her thesis or not. No one in any field of study has ever done this for any argument ever. So yes, when it comes to her argument, there are going to be some titles that are not mentioned--and that's OK, so long as her thesis is restricted to "This trope happens an awful lot" and not "This trope happens in every single game ever" (which would be trivially disprovable). I don't know what else would satisfy you. What you're asking is both physically impossible, and completely unnecessary for the scope of her argument.

As for ignoring certain aspects of a game, that could potentially be a more salient criticism if there were aspects of Mario and Zelda that directly contradicted Anita's thesis, except that, again, her thesis is so limited that they don't really, at least not to a subversive degree. (I attribute this to the fact that her detractors, including you, have an impressive record of inferring Anita to be making much more radical arguments than she actually does.) For example, to go to Kite Tales' argument, what does the fact that Peach is a princess and is loved by her subjects have to do with anything? She still gets kidnapped and imprisoned in the vast majority of the games, she still is entirely helpless to manufacture her own escape in any way in the vast majority the games, she still has no meaningful character traits or skills as a politician or ruler, and most importantly, that is the sum total of her importance to the stories of the games. (If anything, the fact that she's a princess and still can't wrangle a decent security system or armed defense of her castle after this many kidnappings indicates her to be totally incompetent and the kingdom to have the stability of Myanmar.)

Peach's value to the main Mario series is not because she is a princess, not because Toads love her, not because she has impressive diplomatic skills, not because she's an excellent orator, not because she has good fashion sense, and not because she opens up interesting storylines--her value lies solely in the fact that she gets kidnapped time after time after time, as evidenced by the fact that the games have done virtually nothing to show us those other sides of her character, if they even exist. Almost everything else about her is window dressing. So you can, as Kite Tales does, list off a bunch of other superficial traits about her and criticize Anita for not recognizing them, but that does absolutely nothing to Anita's argument because those traits don't do anything to make Peach any more effective or active of a character.

She gets things completely backwards about what happened with Starfox Adventures, for instance (things that a bit of research will tell you without ever playing the game). The question is how much is she getting incorrect about the games, how much they are damaging her thesis on the subject, if she's cherry picking and then lying by implication to get to a biased outcome, is she just being careless, or something else altogether? From what some people have said on her college thesis, there's a consistency with her viewpoints not being supported well by her not getting the facts about the games she uses as examples straight, so how can we trust that she'll be here? This is not to say that she doesn't get things right, but these things are such common knowledge that if you got it wrong, no one would take you seriously (such as the story around SMB2).

This is silly. If you allege that she made factually untrue claims, say what they are. Don't hide behind this wishy-washy "well maybe she lied and how we can trust her" nonsense. You don't have to trust her. You don't have to take anything she said for granted. But if you have specific problems with the argument she presented and the facts she cited, it would be better if you pointed them out instead of this vague character attack.

 

[Keikaku]

The only problem with this is that you can't just ignore aspects of a game, or entire games, that you don't think fit a viewpoint that you want to believe to be true. It's been proven through her Bayonetta video that she can get things extremely wrong, to the point where you have to wonder if she played the games she's talking about or not (if she didn't play the game, how can she make a fair judgment on the game?). She gets things completely backwards about what happened with Starfox Adventures, for instance (things that a bit of research will tell you without ever playing the game).

The question is how much is she getting incorrect about the games, how much they are damaging her thesis on the subject, if she's cherry picking and then lying by implication to get to a biased outcome, is she just being careless, or something else altogether? From what some people have said on her college thesis, there's a consistency with her viewpoints not being supported well by her not getting the facts about the games she uses as examples straight, so how can we trust that she'll be here? This is not to say that she doesn't get things right, but these things are such common knowledge that if you got it wrong, no one would take you seriously (such as the story around SMB2).

I like how in this thread, much like the last one, you still insist on making claims without pointing out specific evidence or, even worse, implying that Anita is making malicious bad-faith arguments again without any sort of proof. I'm waiting for you to make another silly argument about how video games with female characters are harder to make because it costs more or some such nonsense.

I was hesitant to say this before but you definitely sound like you're concern trolling now.

 

[darkpower]

I like how in this thread, much like the last one, you still insist on making claims without pointing out specific evidence or, even worse, implying that Anita is making malicious bad-faith arguments again without any sort of proof. I'm waiting for you to make another silly argument about how video games with female characters are harder to make because it costs more or some such nonsense.

I was hesitant to say this before but you definitely sound like you're concern trolling now.

And I was wondering when someone would go to that vastly vague term. Took a while to get to that point, actually.

Seriously, how could you consider this concern trolling when there is a video that depicts many of the things she got wrong in her Bayonetta video? http://youtu.be/XbihPTgAql4 Hint: leave annotations on!

How can she get that much wrong about the game and then say that she knew enough about the game to make a fair conclusion? Are you trying to say that by bringing up what she got incorrect, it devalues my standing in wanting gender equality in games? Why are you? Is it fair to even equate the two? We're talking about one person here, not the entire movement or one part of the movement (reading the thread would make you aware of the terms "radical feminism" and "individual feminism" being brought up and how these two forms of feminism can be vastly different).

Now, as for the college thesis, I can direct you to another video: http://youtu.be/p6gLmcS3-NI . Looking at this video again, she uses the term "patriarchy" a good bit. This is the same term radical feminists use a good bit of the time to term male dominance over women in several areas. How is bringing up disagreements with how she views certain female characters disqualify me in any way of being for gender equality.

As for what she got wrong in the actual video, take Starfox Adventures. Miyamoto took up involvement in the game after he saw that Sable, the male protagonist in the original Dinosaur Planet game (never mentioned as a male and never mentioned again after she initially addresses his existence), had the same body features as Fox. Because the male character was never brought up at all outside of one time, is it unfair to say that Krystal (who actually appears later on in the Starfox franchise, Command and Assault, as a strong female character and her peril in SFA only came from being blindsided by an evil force of nature that could destroy planets) might not have been the kind of "object of desire" as Anita claimed it to be? (here's a link to an interview that someone had with someone that developed the game: http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2012/12/feature_the_making_of_star_fox_adventures . There a YouTube response video that brought this game up extensively, as well, but I'm having trouble finding it now. I'll post the link once I find it).

Couple in the notion that if she were to include spin offs, it would set her entire point astray about playability of Peach, and her lack of inclusion of how utterly confusing the Zelda timeline is (or about a certain point that you can see in the Zelda 2 manual about princesses of Hyrule), and you can see why I'm dismayed that you would use that term so freely, especially when information is easily available if you look well enough.

But I do have to wonder why you would label in the first place, given that understanding that people will disagree with others on the internet should be in place especially when talking about such a sensitive issue? Has the white knighting become that bad? It's probably the "go to" label. Don't know when in my post did I ever argue that gender equality is bad or anything even remotely like that. As someone who has said works in the game industry, I would suspect you would know better than to do that and to see that people can just disagree, and that we should deal with people disagreeing. Frequency disagrees with me on this, but I'm debating based on merits and with respect that disagreements will happen (and I've even provided the link to the idea of ifeminism, which, if you read that, you could probably see why I've been freely bringing up the faults that Anita has without fear of being labeled because I know that's not what I'm doing). I'm not sure what freq's response will be when s/he reads that. Maybe it'll be revolutionary, maybe the feelings will still be there, I don't know, but at least I get my point across, but I'm actually liking the dialogue I'm having there because, outside of one time, I haven't exactly found that person to be willing to just slap a label and not bother with actually arguing the merits.

In contrast, all you did was say "oh, I don't know HOW you could've possibly gotten to that conclusion. You must be a concern troll." I provided the links to the proof in this post, and I think you can direct yourself to the post with my link to the McElroy essay. And I don't know how, being a person who probably would know a good bit about gaming and games in general (having worked in the industry, as you pointed out to me in the other thread) you would actually need proof to tell about the developmental processes or the facts behind Bayonetta, SFA, or any of the other games mentioned. I expect someone like faceless to not have as much of an understanding about where to find this stuff, but you...I'd expect better of. No disrespect, but have to call you out on that and your willingness to use a label so freely, especially when you know that such sensitive topics have a lot of different opinions. Hell, you got the double whammy in that regard: not only did you call me that, but you're the one that introduced the label into the thread. GG, indeed!

But yeah, I have to give credit where it's due: took a bit for people to begin using that label so liberally.

 

[ZealousD]

Can someone please try to summarize exactly what they think the argument being made in the reply video is? Because for all the talk about how it thoroughly dismantles Anita's video, I don't see any argument there beyond "There's more to Peach's and Zelda's character than being DiDs." Which is not only entirely irrelevant to Anita's argument, it implicitly concedes that Anita is correct in labeling Peach and Zelda as DiDs. So, uh, the best reply video you got is one that doesn't even contest Anita's main argument?

Whether or not Peach or Zelda serve as Damsels in Distress is not the issue being debated.

What is being debated is whether the trope is really as problematic as Anita believes it is.

 

[Persona86]

You mean like they were trying to save a Damsel in Distress?

 

[les papillons sexuels]

that was great. I'm against the feminist position personally. Most arguments from that ideology seem to be post-hoc and approach subject matter in a way that always appears to support their view, regardless of whether it does or not. Zelda is a very powerful role model, and while peach might not be, mario doesn't serve as any better a role model for men. (at least peach is a princess with money and power who controls an entire kingdom, mario is just a plumber with a brother)

I also like that she doesn't put herself in the video, anita seems like an attention whore, always throwing her face in the camera whenever can because she needs to be seen.

 

[darkpower]

Whether or not Peach or Zelda serve as Damsels in Distress is not the issue being debated.

What is being debated is whether the trope is really as problematic as Anita believes it is.

Exactly this! While we should be glad it's brought up, anyone with a brain could have done that without needing the money she got (is bringing that up concern trolling or being salty? I'm confused which snarl word we should use there). I think many people in this thread and the other one who criticized her viewpoints did so without saying that the topic itself shouldn't be discussed rather well, only saying that it deserves a better talking head than her. I don't understand where they can't seem to separate one from the other. Perhaps that's the code word for "we don't have a valid counterargument, but we don't agree with you, so...CONCERN TROLL!" Rather disingenuous if you ask me.

that was great. I'm against the feminist position personally. Most arguments from that ideology seem to be post-hoc and approach subject matter in a way that always appears to support their view, regardless of whether it does or not. Zelda is a very powerful role model, and while peach might not be, mario doesn't serve as any better a role model for men.

I also like that she doesn't put herself in the video, anita seems like an attention whore, always throwing her face in the camera whenever can because she needs to be seen.

Meh, I don't know if her being on camera in of itself makes anyone an attention whore. We see prominent Youtubers put themselves on camera a lot. Jessie Cox and Dodger do a good bit. TotalBiscuit does, but not a whole lot. And we all know how much face time AVGN and the Nostalgia Critic have in their videos.

How they use that "face time" is the different maker in that regard.

 

[rohlfinator]

Whether or not Peach or Zelda serve as Damsels in Distress is not the issue being debated.

What is being debated is whether the trope is really as problematic as Anita believes it is.

Er, did we watch the same video? Because she spent about 90% of the video focused on trying to explain that Peach and Zelda are more than DiDs. There was a total of one line questioning whether the trope is problematic.

I also like that she doesn't put herself in the video, anita seems like an attention whore, always throwing her face in the camera whenever can because she needs to be seen.

Stay classy.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

Meh, I don't know if her being on camera in of itself makes anyone an attention whore. We see prominent Youtubers put themselves on camera a lot. Jessie Cox and Dodger do a good bit. TotalBiscuit does, but not a whole lot. And we all know how much face time AVGN and the Nostalgia Critic have in their videos.

How they use that "face time" is the different maker in that regard.

different content. Most people who are critizing content and making discussions spend more time showing content, anita spends more time showing her face.

Look at egoraptor on sequelitis, showing examples, vs Anita where she just talks at you and expects you to agree. In her bayonetta video for example, she even crops the game down to like 20% of the screen while talking at you saying "look at me, listen to what I say" instead of letting the evidence speak for itself.

Stay classy.

maybe she shouldn't be supporting the patriarchy by requiring everyone to view her and objectify her through the male gaze of a camera. Feminism!

 

[endless dave]

Looking at this video again, she uses the term "patriarchy" a good bit. This is the same term radical feminists use a good bit of the time to term male dominance over women in several areas. How is bringing up disagreements with how she views certain female characters disqualify me in any way of being for gender equality.

Uh, "patriarchy" is not a term that is at all associated just with your scary strawmen "radical feminists." It's a widely accepted term among almost all branches of feminism

I mean, if you're trying to go down some "why is it called 'feminism?!' That's so alienating to men! They should be humanists!" thing, good for you, but you're misunderstanding some basic tenants of feminism

 

[darkpower]

Er, did we watch the same video? Because she spent about 90% of the video focused on trying to explain that Peach and Zelda are more than DiDs. There was a total of one line questioning whether the trope is problematic.

I'm not sure if you're thinking they were discussing KiteTales' video or Anita's one.

different content. Most people who are critizing content and making discussions spend more time showing content, anita spends more time showing her face.

Not sure if I can agree with that. Some people on YouTube just like to do things like that. When I made some of my YouTube videos, I was in front of the camera a lot, too, but that was because I was going for a specific style of doing my videos that required that sort of face time. Of course, I don't want to do that style anymore, but it could show that I'm not exactly keen on showing my face...one look at those videos might explain why!

Look at egoraptor on sequelitis, showing examples, vs Anita where she just talks at you and expects you to agree. In her bayonetta video for example, she even crops the game down to like 20% of the screen while talking at you saying "look at me, listen to what I say" instead of letting the evidence speak for itself.

I THINK I know who you're talking about, but I'm not certain. The Bayonetta video has been ripped to shreds by so many and deservingly so. Even if the point she's trying to make is a good one, her using falehoods and misrepresentation of the games she uses to get to said point dilutes the entire point she's trying to make.

maybe she shouldn't be supporting the patriarchy by requiring everyone to view her and objectify her through the male gaze of a camera. Feminism!

Thankfully, not all feminists think alike. patriarchy is a common thought for radical feminism (which is why I am standing by her being one: it's sort of transparent that if she isn't a radical, she's doing a damn good job of posing as one). Not all feminist believe that gender equality isn't setting special rules aside but by abiding by the notion that we're all part of the human race, and thus, we're all unique in some sort of way as members of society instead of members of a majority or minority group, and to accept responsibility for our mistakes and not use class status as a crutch for human faults regardless of which majority/minority group we belong to. Many minority groups actually believe in a system like this, actually, though it's unfortunate that it's not given a name most of the time.

We all abide by the same laws, the same system of justice and fairness, and the same system of human nature and sanity.

 

[rohlfinator]

I'm not sure if you're thinking they were discussing KiteTales' video or Anita's one.

The video in the OP.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

I'm not sure if you're thinking they were discussing KiteTales' video or Anita's one.


Not sure if I can agree with that. Some people on YouTube just like to do things like that. When I made some of my YouTube videos, I was in front of the camera a lot, too, but that was because I was going for a specific style of doing my videos that required that sort of face time. Of course, I don't want to do that style anymore, but it could show that I'm not exactly keen on showing my face...one look at those videos might explain why!



I THINK I know who you're talking about, but I'm not certain. The Bayonetta video has been ripped to shreds by so many and deservingly so. Even if the point she's trying to make is a good one, her using falehoods and misrepresentation of the games she uses to get to said point dilutes the entire point she's trying to make.




Thankfully, not all feminists think alike. patriarchy is a common thought for radical feminism (which is why I am standing by her being one: it's sort of transparent that if she isn't a radical, she's doing a damn good job of posing as one). Not all feminist believe that gender equality isn't setting special rules aside but by abiding by the notion that we're all part of the human race, and thus, we're all unique in some sort of way as members of society instead of members of a majority or minority group, and to accept responsibility for our mistakes and not use class status as a crutch for human faults regardless of which majority/minority group we belong to. Many minority groups actually believe in a system like this, actually, though it's unfortunate that it's not given a name most of the time.

We all abide by the same laws, the same system of justice and fairness, and the same system of human nature and sanity.

Her approach is feminist, If i were to take an economic approach to the issue at hand, particularly this damsel in distress trope, I could easily provide just as compelling an argument.

The games were made to market to the largest population of gamers at the time. Which happened to be younger, and male. Game developers focus tested their audience and found most young children wanted to play characters that were familiar and relatable to them. Hence link was a young boy, and mario was a fatherly cartoon character. This reflects the market for the game, just like female dolls are marketed more to girls because they're relatable to their target audience. Conversly parents, who were the main source of money, did not want games that were negative influences on their children, and instead of having the female a villian who the male would have to "defeat," "conquer," or "destroy" they were used primarily as plot devices who held prioity positions and require saving in order to restore balance. Hence why the villans are often monstorous.

Could you imagine if mario was literally jumping on peach to defeat her in order to save bowser? Wouldn't that be just as bad with the feminist frame of mind? He would be a literal metaphor of the patriachy in that regard.

yes, gender issues exist, but the primary reason they exist in games can boil down to any number of arguements. From development, to marketing and costs, to sexism. It's a complex issue, and lumping it all under one argument is hella broken in my opinion.

Hell, design plays another big role. Look at fighting games, the characters are designed to reflect their playstyle. Fast characters are skinny, strong characters look muscular. This isn't some social construct, it's nature. The cheetah looks like it can outrun an elephant, a bear looks like its more vicious then a goat.

 

[fader]

wow that video was awesome

 

[zkylon]

I didn't like anita's video but really some of the conclusions in these are just as shit.

"you shouldn't care about women's representation in video games because the videogame industry is a business and what sells sells and you gotta sell them games to get people to keep their jobs!"

my god such idiotic bullshit

some characters can have BOTH positive and negative traits, that part she's right, but seriously this feels like the complete opposite, defending peach to the point it's ridiculous.

edit: she's right about zelda too

 

[fader]

I didn't like anita's video but really some of the conclusions in these are just as shit.

"you shouldn't care about women's representation in video games because the videogame industry is a business and what sells sells and you gotta sell them games to get people to keep their jobs!"

my god such idiotic bullshit

some characters can have BOTH positive and negative traits, that part she's right, but seriously this feels like the complete opposite, defending peach to the point it's ridiculous.

edit: she's right about zelda too

I think what shes trying to say is that the business are going to have male main characters over female characters because at our current day and age its easier to sell it.
business are going to do whatever makes it so they can pay their employees so they can afford to live.

 

[polyh3dron]

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.

Or would she be a Fighting Fuck Toy?

I swear, it's like she has a trope name for every situation and they're all bad. The only feasible solution would be to no longer have any female characters in video games but then she'd of course ask why there are no female characters.

 

[zkylon]

I think what shes trying to say is that the business are going to have male main characters over female characters because at our current day and age its easier to sell it.
business are going to do whatever makes it so they can pay their employees so they can afford to live.

I know it's just an idiotic response to a an actual problem.

it's a known fact that women are misrepresented and mistreated in the games industry. lower wages as shown this week, all those stories in #1reasonwhy, bullying towards women in online gaming, the overall grossness that is dead or alive, all that shit.

you can argue that it's debatable for all of that not to have a negative effect on both male and female gamers, because you'd be right, it's as difficult to prove as is the relationship between gaming and real world violence.

so far so good.

my problem with this girl's video is that for all her factual errors and whatever, anita sarkiseaan is bringing up an issue that's real and that it should be at least worth talking about: women (both real and virtual) in the game industry just aren't treated as equals.

shutting her down because in the end "it's all a business and devs gotta keep makin' what's sellin'!" is just atrocious. how can you even say that?

how can you defend the (possibility) of misogyny and sexism 'cuz "publishers gotta eat!"?

it's like the most insane and backwards counterargument I've ever read and if I were a weaker man I'd say it invalidates her whole fucking video.

 

[Carcetti]

I think what shes trying to say is that the business are going to have male main characters over female characters because at our current day and age its easier to sell it.
business are going to do whatever makes it so they can pay their employees so they can afford to live.

So the problem is the audience and not the business. And talking about these issues is educating the audience. Good thing we're having these threads then.

Also, if some publishers can only survive by pandering to idiots and the childish, good riddance.

 

[PaulExcellent]

I don't wish to add to the discussion of sexism, but I want to post my opinion in the video.

It was very well done, her information was well-organized and concise, and her points validate my opinion of the characters that were discussed.

Good show, KiteTales. Good show.

Also, her voice is nice.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

So the problem is the audience and not the business. And talking about these issues is educating the audience. Good thing we're having these threads then.

Also, if some publishers can only survive by pandering to idiots and the childish, good riddance.

it's not the audience, it's the market.

It's like saying we should be marketing tampons to men... why? If the audience is mostly male, the developers are mostly male, then of course games are going to be more male-centric in design.

I didn't like anita's video but really some of the conclusions in these are just as shit.

"you shouldn't care about women's representation in video games because the videogame industry is a business and what sells sells and you gotta sell them games to get people to keep their jobs!"

my god such idiotic bullshit

some characters can have BOTH positive and negative traits, that part she's right, but seriously this feels like the complete opposite, defending peach to the point it's ridiculous.

edit: she's right about zelda too

i love it. So the feminist approach is the right one, the capitalist/marxist approach isn't. They're two arguments for the same phenomenom. I think the finicial route is a more valid realm then the imaginary god complex of the feminist argument.

 

[Wok]

The video consists of a powerpoint presentation with walls of text. What is more problematic though is the wall of text on each slide is only one sentence.

The interesting part of the video starts at 6m36s and ends at 10m.

 

[zkylon]

it's not the audience, it's the market.

It's like saying we should be marketing tampons to men... why? If the audience is mostly male, the developers are mostly male, then of course games are going to be more male-centric in design.

half the gamers are women: "Forty-seven percent of all players are women, and women over 18 years of age are one of the industry's fastest growing demographics."

male devs just don't know what to sell to women, that's it.

 

[Carcetti]

it's not the audience, it's the market.

It's like saying we should be marketing tampons to men... why? If the audience is mostly male, the developers are mostly male, then of course games are going to be more male-centric in design.

Can you spot a difference between games and tampons? One is a product that's made to cater to the needs of female anatomy and one's an essentially unisex activity. The audience is mostly male because it started that way but gaming is not somehow intrinsically male. There's no point treating it like some unchanging, monolithic thing.

 

[PaulExcellent]

The video consists of a powerpoint presentation with walls of text. What is more problematic though is the wall of text on each slide is only one sentence.

The interesting part of the video starts at 6m36s and ends at 10m.

It did, and it still was a really acceptable presentation of her points.
Was the narration not what mattered? Does the information lose its value because of a lack of flair and specific font choices?

If you are an expert on the matter of presentations and design, and my opinion is incorrect, I would like to apologize, and I ask for an explanation, so that I might understand better.

 

[ZealousD]

Er, did we watch the same video? Because she spent about 90% of the video focused on trying to explain that Peach and Zelda are more than DiDs. There was a total of one line questioning whether the trope is problematic.

You can be more than a DiD while still being a DiD.

And no, there was more than "one line" about whether the DiD trope is problematic. The main thrust KiteTales's argument was that the DiD trope isn't as inherently disempowering to women as Anita says it is. Zelda might be a DiD but that doesn't mean that her character is an weak, useless, disempowered object.

 

[darkpower]

Okay, so I've been looking through more about different theories of feminism, and the more that I'm looking through texts and that, I might actually be misplacing myself, as I'm probably describing a liberal feminist from what I've been seeing rather than individual. Individual feminism is more of a conservative viewpoint, and while I can agree with some of it, I'm by no means a conservative.

Liberal fems, too, believe in equal rights and equality among genders, and viewing each person as a unique individual. When it comes to this subject, though, common ground could still be hard to get to because we have such strong beliefs that it's hard to see what the views are. I do still think, though, that individual aspects of a person can sometimes trump gender roles, and that abduction doesn't necessarily mean a patriarch is in play.

I guess it'll be hard to describe without bringing up something I posted on MMO Champion the other day when asking how to describe this sort of scenario I'm talking about and coming up with a term to describe it. Might be crude, but it's all I had at the time:

Those scenes, however, outline instead what I'm trying to describe in a concise way, where human nature, interdependence, and social roles come into play, and those scenes describe a person in peril due to a situation that a male could just as easily find themselves in, or a human need for support, that wouldn't define a gender role or demoralize any particular gender; that would instead define the person as an individual and as a person with individual character flaws that are unique to that person that aren't defined by said gender roles.

Thing is, I think I might have a way to describe this, but it's not concise.

Say a woman was suddenly hit by a speeding car that she never saw coming when she tries to cross the street (i.e.: the victim of a hit and run). Gender of driver isn't important. Now, human nature would say that she would need help, and social behavior, one would hope, would be to actually go to help her (I say "one would hope" because I did see a story on MSNBC where someone was hit by a car and no one even reacted). Now, if a male happened to go and help the woman, would this strip the woman of her dignity? Would this make a male superior to the woman? Should it matter which gender helped this woman out? If she is unable to move due to broken bones, and medics are around to take her to a hospital, would the presence of male paramedics mean that gender roles are playing a role in this scenario? Is the woman stripping her own dignity to yell for help, or even to accept the help? I do not think so because we're looking at a form of human nature, duty as members of society, and a sense of human flaws and nature. Also, since a male could be put into that same scenario (as in, the gender is interchangeable), gender roles are not in play here.

God, I hope that makes some sort of sense. I thought this was individualism, and it could still be to some extent, but I'm far from conservative.

Note that I wrote that while having near ten or more Chrome tabs opened trying to find a term for that. Perhaps I had already found it, but thought it was something else, huh?

You can be more than a DiD while still being a DiD.

And no, there was more than "one line" about whether the DiD trope is problematic. The main thrust KiteTales's argument was that the DiD trope isn't as inherently disempowering to women as Anita says it is. Zelda might be a DiD but that doesn't mean that her character is an weak, useless, disempowered object.

More to your point, I think about Zelda, strength and power doesn't always have to be physical. It can be mental, social, psychological, and intellectual.

With Zelda, what did she do to the Triforce when Ganon first kidnapped her? She broke up her Triforce and hid the pieces, knowing someone would be able to find them. This is showing that though she couldn't beat him on a physical level, she could outsmart him and, in essence, use herself as a sort of bait and trap. In the case of her being in disguise, if no one knows it's her, then no one is going to really bother her because they don't know about the alter persona.

But yeah, just because someone isn't physically brute doesn't mean that they aren't strong.

 

[Slavik81]

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.

She doesn't do a lot physically, true. She's the embodiment of wisdom. Hence why most of what she does is teach.

She's a great NPC in that regard. Most NPCs in Zelda games have nothing but problems. She actually helps.

I'm playing through OoT right now, and I'm really appreciating how well designed a character she is.

 

[zkylon]

i love it. So the feminist approach is the right one, the capitalist/marxist approach isn't. They're two arguments for the same phenomenom. I think the finicial route is a more valid realm then the imaginary god complex of the feminist argument.

???

it's stupid to use "it's only a business" as a response to a discussion of an ethical subject. it's not even saying there's no problem, it's saying "I don't care".

wtf dude, seriously

 

[les papillons sexuels]

half the gamers are women: "Forty-seven percent of all players are women, and women over 18 years of age are one of the industry's fastest growing demographics."

male devs just don't know what to sell to women, that's it.

that's great for right now. But that's not what we're talking about, we're talking about the conception of the legend of zelda and mario games, when gaming was something that was child oriented, and particularly male centric. These games have a story structure thats linked to their initial game concepts, and while gaming audiences have changed, these games are still heavily tied to their inception. That said, zelda is no longer just the princess who gets caught in act one. In oot she becomes shiek, in ww she's a pirate leader, and peach is found in a myriad of games beside mario now.

maybe you want to shed all history thats attached to these games (and all games which borrow from the past), but I dont, just like I dont suddenly want chell to be a man if there's another portal game, nor do I want to choose to be man in the next one, nor do I care.

???

it's stupid to use "it's only a business" as a response to a discussion of an ethical subject. it's not even saying there's no problem, it's saying "I don't care".

wtf dude, seriously

and the feminist approach is trying to fight an inivisible being which doesn't exist. Just as stupid. (oh, and I was laughing at the ethics part, feminism, videogames and ethics? good one friend, keep fighting that imaginary monster)

 

[Wok]

It did, and it still was a really acceptable presentation of her points.
Was the narration not what mattered? Does the information lose its value because of a lack of flair and specific font choices?

If you are an expert on the matter of presentations and design, and my opinion is incorrect, I would like to apologize, and I ask for an explanation, so that I might understand better.

I am not an expert. I understand your point, yet I feel the medium of the discourse is not well used in this video. As a viewer, I expect a presentation to be more lively than an article: there should be a visible speaker, few words, images, videos, etc. Otherwise, I expect a transcript of the video to be provided so that I can read it at my own pace, I don't care about the voice of the narrator in this particular case.

"Damsel in Distress (Part 1) Tropes vs Women" does it right: there is a transcript, we see the speaker as she speaks rather than walls of text, video cuts make the presentation more dynamic, there are illustrations. This makes the video presentation more relevant.