Tropes Vs Women in Video Games

[Hamishmash]

Yeah I wasn't being serious about that, I've liked Anita's videos for a year or so now and when I found out people are posting AmazingAtheist as like... a good counter argument I was pretty shocked. Don't mind me.

[gaggle64]

I only very recently started watching Anita's videos and I must say it's they're refreshingly honed and precise pieces of researched opinion on the open Youtube platform. I love my video games but the obvious & consistent gender disparity in their themes, design and stories across the medium has often made me feel uncomfortable (also movies, also literature, also comic books etc.) Here's someone who's clearly equipped to call this shit out in an honest and informed way and I feel the nature of the vitriol she's received in response demonstrates the need for her opinion to be aired.

 

Also, I've seen a little of AmazingAtheist's videos and I genuinely believe he needs a therapist.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Any thoughts on this one?

 

I find it completely ridiculous and in no way "misogynistic". See my previous rants on jokes and humour.

 

I think any opinion he expresses must be completely disregarded because clearly he is a delusional, violent mad man. And yet so many men are happy to ignore these aspects because "hmm he does raise some good points".

 

He does raise good points. This is borderline Godwin right there; should we condemn vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian? Come on.

[Magnus]

If Hitler rose from the grave and did a video response to Anita's video, I probably wouldn't be able to take that seriously, either.

[gaggle64]

He does raise good points. This is borderline Godwin right there; should we condemn vegetarianism because Hitler was a vegetarian? Come on.

 

The more accurate comparison would be to say Hitler had some good points about racial integration. There's so much barely-disguised misogynistic (amongst other things) hatred spewing out of this man from every orifice it's blinding.

[Hamishmash]

I can't believe it took 5 pages for an online discussion to bring up Hitler. I was expecting Page 2 or 3 at least.

 

Your point doesn't make sense, you've got the wrong end of it.

 

AmazingAtheist = extreme misogynist makes a reply to a video on feminism... I'm pretty sure his points are going to be highly informed by his clear hatred and disregard for women.

 

However, you've got the wrong end of my point.

 

I'm still an atheist and think atheism is a great thing and it should be promoted. Just because AmazingAtheist doesn't make me condem Atheism.

 

I still don't quite get your point... at all... I can't even decide how to answer that point it is so unrelated to this discussion...

[Rummy]

Tbh, I think all this discussion misses the point. Why are we talking about the AmazingAthiest or Anita? Why not the content of the video in question? By which I mean the one that started this thread.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Does referencing Godwin's Law actually fall under Godwin's Law? This is so meta.

 

Anyway, that's not at all what you said, but fair enough. My point still stands, however; even if he is the biggest misogynist on Earth, if he expresses a sensible argument - which I, as you have probably guessed, certainly believe he does - of course we should consider it. In fact we shouldn't even care who made the argument; the argument should speak for itself.

[MoogleViper]

And then the next time you buy a toy for your niece maybe you'd stop and think, "hmm, that person in that video series made a good point, maybe my niece would prefer a truck over a doll."

 

Or maybe you'd buy her an Easy-Bake Oven and tell her that women belong in the kitchen.

 

I'm going to expand on this. Fuck you "stay on topic please" vagina-faggots.

 

Anyway, I'm not sure what consensus we have here that parents are one of the biggest causes of sexist attitudes and underlying causes. Personally I think they're the biggest. Most people go on about the gender pay gap, but if you've done any research in it, you'll know that it doesn't really exist, at least not as a product of sexism. It's more to do with women stopping their careers to look after children, and not wanting to pursue such fields (such as studying courses like engineering, physics, maths etc., all of which have a higher correlation with career success than course like english and art). There's also large amounts of evidence that women are less motivated by money than men.

 

So when you look at that, it's clearly not discrimination that's the problem, it's women's attitudes/personalities. So we have to look at two different possibilities, women are different creatures than men, and don't want to pursue those things, or society cause women to be the above. Which brings me back to parents. Look at most little boys, they wear jeans and a t-shirt, are constantly playing sports, playing outside, exploring. Their toys are things like lego, k'nect, mechano, computer games etc., which teach them how to build, design, engineer, think quickly etc. Girls on the hand wear nothing but pink, everything they own is pink, they wear dresses and are told off for getting them dirty. Their toys are things like dolls and kitchens. And then we wonder why so many of them are mothers, nurses, teachers etc. (n.b. I'm not having a go at those professions, they're some of the professions I admire the most, but they aren't well paid, and this is about the pay gap).

 

Yet whenever you mention this, a lot of people get defensive. I mentioned it to my sister-in-law. "We're not making her that way, she's only ever wanted to play with dolls and kitchens, that's what she wants." Well of course she does, that's all she's ever had. She's only ever owned one car toy, it was pink and didn't have moving wheels. I bought her some Tigger pyjamas. My sister-in-law complained because they were "boys pyjamas" (i.e. they were green and blue). She was going to take them back and exchange them for some pink Minnie the Mouse one. I put my foot down, and she kept them, but my niece hardly ever wears them. Then when my niece is a few years older (even know in fact at aged 2), when you ask her what she wants she'll say "a doll/kitchen/teddy". People will say that she wants that of her own accord, but that's all she knows. She's been brought up in a sea of pink, and anyone who's been in the girls' toy section will know how disgustingly pink every single item is.

 

Yet when she grows older, and isn't that great at spatial awareness, analytical thinking and logic, but is good at emotional responses, and being caring, people will blame the male CEOs for her not achieving as highly in her career as her male counterpart. But nobody will blame the parents, of course not, that's a far too emotionally defensive can of worms to open.

 

Anyway, that's not at all what you said, but fair enough. My point still stands, however; even if he is the biggest misogynist on Earth, if he expresses a sensible argument - which I, as you have probably guessed, certainly believe he does - of course we should consider it. In fact we shouldn't even care who made the argument; the argument should speak for itself.

 

Ad hominem, it's rife in our society.

[pratty]

I think the damsel in distress is an overused device, but I would say it's probably not intentionally aiming to disempower women, it's more about motivating the male protagonist, and by extension the typically male player. And there's not much more motivating than a loved one in danger, and if the loved one wasn't "disempowered" then they wouldn't be in as much danger.

 

There are of course other things to be motivated by such as money or saving the world in general, and these things do exist in games too, especially saving the world which seems to be pretty much the plot for every other game adventure game.

 

In the case of Mario, saving a loved one is pretty much all he has to fight for. Infact the saving the princess idea is pretty much parody in Mario games these days, I'm pretty sure they make fun of it in Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door, where Peach is playable and actually helps Mario and shows some character, despite being kidnapped.

 

I think the notion of women purely as trohpies is a bit of an oversimplified view. If the game portrays a healthy relationship between the man and the woman, rather than a mindless, slavish sexual devotion of the woman, then I don't see it as anything sexist. If a woman is kidknapped, it's not sexist for her husband to want her back. His wife isn't a trophy to win, getting her back is simply restroring a status quo that the antagonist has disrupted.

 

Additionally the damsels may appear objectivised because they are either trapped/frozen, or lacking in personality. But ultimately these games are about the race, not what's at the finish line. In the shallow narative of a typical Mario game, Peach doesn't need to be anything more than a pretty face waiting at the end of the last level, because the game is not about her. Mario just needs a maguffin to chase after and it just so happens to be a woman rather than an object.

 

I didn't mind the video taking video games to task over the subject. What I wasn't keen on though was that she used some poor examples to overstate her point.

 

For example she said "Zelda has never been a playable character in her own adventure", as though Nintendo actually went against logic to be sexist. At this point I wondered if she even played games, because I thought it was fairly clear that Zelda games are really Link's adventures.

 

Similarly she also moaned about Peach only being playable in one of the Mario platform series. Maybe that's because they're MARIO BROS. games, rather than Peach games. If Peach wasn't being kidkanpped she probably wouldn't even exist.

 

She said Peach was included in SMB2 only by accident, so what? Since when was Peach supposed to be playable in any Mario Bros. games? She only became playable in SMB2 to make up the numbers. But play as Peach you can, and yet she still complains.

 

She then complained that Peach wasn't playable in NSMB Wii just so she would remain the damsel in distress, but actually according to Miyamoto:

 

"I thought it'd be nice to have her as a playable character, but the toad characters had a similar physique to a Mario character than Peach does. And if one of the four had a dress, we'd have to come up with a special programming to handle how the skirt is handled in the gameplay, and that's really the only reason why Peach isn't playable."

 

So it appears there was actually a practical reason, rather than a sexist one. So Nintendo didn't go out of their way to make Peach playable, why should they? Why is there a need for a female character at all? The toads are only there to make up the numbers again.

 

And if Peach or even Toadette was playable she could just as easily argue it was sexist and patronising of Nintendo to infer that women needed pink dress wearing female sprites in order to enjoy video games, as though women are incapable of playing from a male protagonist point of view.

 

I'm not sure if her intentions were to simply point out instances of damsels in distress, or actually say the video games industry is completely sexist from top to bottom. Either way she paints a narrow view of the industry for the casual viewer.

 

Take Rresident Evil for instance, you can play as the bloke (stronger) or the woman (more resourceful), both have their strengths and weaknesses, neither's necessarily better. (And it isn't sexist to portray Chris as stronger than Rebecca because in the real wolrd the average man is stronger than the average woman.) Plus in RE4, as well as the damsel in distress in Ashley, there is also Ada Wong, so they portay both empowered and disempowered females, just as both exist in real life.

 

For all their fantasy elements, sometimes games do need to reflect real life a little, and in games where violence is portrayed it's probably fair to say men generally excel in that department, and that typically men want to fight more than women. So when you combine that with the fact that most gamers are men prefering to identify with male characters, it's hardly surprising that there are fewer female protagonists in violent video games.

[Ville]

Very good points, people. Just like Danny said, a good point is a good point, doesn't really matter what the history of the person is, and it shouldn't matter...What comes to the AA rant Hamish posted, it's still just a solitary quote, even if unpleasant. We'd need much more info to analyse the whole situation, like what took place before it, and what came after it etc...

 

Also, lol at objectivity and approaching things fairly in this thread.

 

Come on man. You clearly think there's something very unfair about this discussion, so what is it? Spew it out, please. I mean, you just keep on taking passive-aggressive potshots one after another, yet don't really say anything...not cool xS

 

Also, I don't understand what your problem with the concept of "objectivity" is here. Clearly people are trying to make sense of the situation here, i.e. acknowledging any points Sarkeesian makes yet also stating their own opinions. Even I agree that she has some valid points, even if I don't buy her argument as a whole. I mean is this not enough, should we just silently agree to everything she says just because she's a woman and thus represents the historical hardships of that gender? : o

 

@MoogleViper Hmm, not sure about how much the upbringing actually affects people, and how much is innate (nature). This might be a time for a thread rip...

[Agent Gibbs]

@MoogleViper Hmm, not sure about how much the upbringing actually affects people, and how much is innate (nature). This might be a time for a thread rip...

 

There already was a thread with a similar theme iirc about some parents creating a gender neutral child, by not even telling anyone if it was a boy or a girl, gender neutral everything

[Ville]

There already was a thread with a similar theme iirc about some parents creating a gender neutral child, by not even telling anyone if it was a boy or a girl, gender neutral everything

 

And what was the result?

[Agent Gibbs]

regarding the situation, it was widely believed it was extreme, with regards to the issue as a whole, same as this no outcome

[Grazza]

One other thing - it's diverting from the issue possible - but could there be any positive influence on the gamers of playing the games in question? The hero going on a quest to rescue the princess/save the world/defeat the villain? Possibly moreso on male gamers with a male protagonist? Does it instil any sort of moral sense of doing the 'right thing'?

 

I just think it's natural, and so tends to appear in stories. About two weeks ago - I kid you not - a girl I know came and found me specially because she wanted me to protect her from an aggressive man. In a way, it was a "damsel in distress" moment, even though I didn't hit him with a sword. No, I lanced the bugger.

 

Turns out he was a misogynist who always has a go at women. See, I think it's sexist to treat women badly, not to protect them. I don't blame Anita at all for not enabling comments on YouTube, because the reality is that scumbags would just flame her.

 

The trouble is I don't think "women = feminists". I would even consider myself a feminist if I thought it was about equality, but I don't think that's the case. You could argue the politically-correct atmosphere has led to them making Lara Croft more boring. What's good about that? She used to be designed in a way that was aesthetically very pleasing - to either gender, I'm sure. Now she's a bit less appealing. I just don't see the point.

 

It's like some feminists want to ban Page 3, and yet every woman I know is perfectly fine with it. I read the Sun every canteen break and don't feel at all uncomfortable looking at it amongst girls. Sometimes they'll have a look at the hair and make-up etc. It's just a ridiculous idea that "glamorous depiction of women = sexist". Same with Dead or Alive. It is not sexist at all. The boobs bounce because they're boobs. The men's chests don't bounce because they're pecs.

[Magnus]

I love the idea that a woman not designed to be a sex object = more boring. You clearly haven't played the new Tomb Raider if you think the new Lara Croft is more boring or less appealing than the old one.

[Zechs Merquise]

It's like some feminists want to ban Page 3, and yet every woman I know is perfectly fine with it. I read the Sun every canteen break and don't feel at all uncomfortable looking at it amongst girls. Sometimes they'll have a look at the hair and make-up etc. It's just a ridiculous idea that "glamorous depiction of women = sexist". Same with Dead or Alive. It is not sexist at all. The boobs bounce because they're boobs. The men's chests don't bounce because they're pecs.

 

Only ugly, insecure and bitter women want to ban page 3 or the depiction of women as glamorous and sexy. Any reasoned adult female realises it's a woman's choice whether she wants to bare her breasts on page 3 or doesn't!

 

Beautiful women will always use their beauty to advance their position in society, it's been like that from the beginning of time. Whether it has allowed them to marry a rich man, earn money through the sex industry or they have used it in other ways to gain an advantage.

 

And whilst it's rather fashionable to talk about female historical hardships like the lack of a vote, they also weren't rounded up and forced over the top at the Somme or press ganged into naval and military service.

 

Whilst women weren't always given the same advantages as males in many circumstances, they were also treated with respect and dignity in others and men were expected to stand aside, open doors for ladies and in life threatening circumstances allow 'women and children' first.

 

Certain 'journalists' and commentators enjoy making something out of nothing, which is what has been done in this case. All you have to do is look at the ridiculously silly reaction by one or two people to the 'bros before hoes' Trophy in the new God of War title.

[Ville]

 

One more counterpoint video by Thunderf00t, very nicely done...

[Guy]

If every single one of these videos is going to generate this kind of response I'm gonna need to buy more popcorn.

[MoogleViper]

If every single one of these videos is going to generate this kind of response I'm gonna need to buy more popcorn.

 

I don't think she'll fall for that.

[Agent Gibbs]

thunderfoot makes a nice reasoned debate in that, i'd honestly like to see Anita and him actually debate something like this in person

[Magnus]

Man, that video just kept on giving.

 

Having a problem with women as objects that need to be rescued by men basically means you wouldn't save your loved ones from a burning building.

 

It's okay for games to be sexists as long as they sell.

 

Player characters can die in video games and that's sexist because they're usually men.

 

Blah blah comments are turned off blah.

 

And my favorite: if you don't like it, make your own game.

 

Does anyone have a link to more video responses like that? :p

[Rummy]

Nice expanded points there.

[Magnus]

You say that like they need to be expanded upon.

[Hamishmash]

Man, that video just kept on giving.

 

Having a problem with women as objects that need to be rescued by men basically means you wouldn't save your loved ones from a burning building.

 

It's okay for games to be sexists as long as they sell.

 

Player characters can die in video games and that's sexist because they're usually men.

 

Blah blah comments are turned off blah.

 

And my favorite: if you don't like it, make your own game.

 

Does anyone have a link to more video responses like that? :p

 

It was pretty dire. Another man trying to make excuses for why he doesn't like his beloved games being called out.

 

I'd love to see a woman who disagrees with the video make a response. Although it'd probably be from one of those "girls are bitches I like my dude friends more because dudes aren't bitches or sluts" kinda girls... I want to see a feminist put up some counter arguments.

 

And to be honest if anyone ISN'T a feminist they're pretty fucking disgusting. If you believe men and women are born equal, you're a feminist so all these anti-feminism people don't really know what they're saying.

 

I also think you guys are forgetting that PART 2 is essentially going to be a counter argument from her. I think she should have put it up sooner but still... let's just wait to see what she says.

Edited March 16, 2013 by Hamishmash