Tropes vs Women in Video Games

There's a whole lot of talking in this thread, and I've yet to see a single real critique of the video. People saying "Oh it's boring, it's wrong, it's just opinion," but never actually citing anything directly, or arguing anything. You know, if you don't want to be interpreted as a misogynist you should probably pretend to respect women enough to actually argue with them instead of dismissing them out of hand.

Personally, I liked the video. It was well constructed and provided a lot of evidence for her points, and lots of examples of the trope being examined.

Quote from Jetsetlemming

You know, if you don't want to be interpreted as a misogynist you should probably pretend to respect women enough to actually argue with them instead of dismissing them out of hand.

Well, Anita has disabled the comment feature on her video. How can one actually argue with her? She seems not to allow discussion.

Quote from Al Anselmo

Well, Anita has disabled the comment feature on her video. How can one actually argue with her? She seems not to allow discussion.

You could perhaps start by actually making points in this thread beyond blanket accusations of bias, corruption, and ignorance? She has the comments disabled for a reason, and I'm perfectly ok with the loss of potentially valuable Youtube video comments to prevent the 99.999% of what real Youtube comments tend to be.

Seriously, youtube comments are the least valuable form of communication on the entire planet, and you are really, really stretching for something to complain about if you're complaining about restricted access to commenting on a youtube video. She has a publicly listed email address, you can write a blog on many gaming websites like Giant Bomb, you could upload your own youtube videos in response. You can't throw words into a box that nobody will read even if it did technically exist, BOO HOO

First thing off my personal opinion is that i find the video to be a completely shallow enumeration of denunciations over fictional characters (this is important) that don't define what a woman as a single being is.

That said, Jetsetlemming when you write:

Quote

You know, if you don't want to be interpreted as a misogynist you should probably pretend to respect women enough to actually argue with them instead of dismissing them out of hand.

What you are saying is that if someone would contest Sarkeesian and the opinions of her followers, they are having an argument with each and every woman on the planet ? Since when is she the voice of my girlfriend, mother, friends and family or of your own personal feminine relatives. And this is obviously the shield she is using to defend her own ideas and projects.

There are several different things : a woman as a single being / feminism as an ideology / sarkeesian movement and community. And those cannot be put under the same banner at any moment.

I'm against any form of communitarianism (although this is an idealistic point of view since it's pretty difficult to do without), and especially those which get complementary beings such as men and women apart.

That said if i would want to it's pretty hard for me to justify being part of a minority : i'm white, caucasian, of catholic education, i've got brown eyes and brown hair; i'm not homosexual, i'm not ginger, i'm not handicapped and hasn't been victim of discrimination of any kind.

Is that a reason for a human being to not voice an opinion about a community who claims indecently to represent all women on the planet ?

I'm not the stereotype videogames show about white straight males, i'm not duke nukem, drake, solid snake, kratos, etc And if i disagree with the image of the man pictured here, it's ok; because I know they are fictional characters of cultural products and don't represent me in any kind since i'm a unique human being, coming from the same mold maybe; but lived life in my unique personal way.

In my opinion, cultural products should express whatever they would want to, and should be free of morals; morality should be something you keep at home.

This is over the top, but I wouldn't mind seeing released a Theme : Deportation camp / Anno 1788: the slave trade / Ustachis : call for duty. Although i would very strongly disagree about what they convey, but give them the right to exist.

And those examples are much less trivial stuff than what Sarkeesian is denouncing.

You shouldn't be afraid of hurting people feelings when creating a cultural product, you can't call anything an artistic space if that freedom of expression doesn't exist.

And to me this clearly shows how under pressure the video game industry is, and probably is one of the most artistically restricted media. Acknowledging Lobbyists opinions like Sarkeesian or any other dictates is actually getting a step back for the videogame development creative process (if you want to call this an artistic space).

And don't get me wrong, i feel for the people feeling bad when identifying themselves into fictional stereotypes; but they just shouldn't seeing themselves into those and get offended.

Quote from Jetsetlemming

There's a whole lot of talking in this thread, and I've yet to see a single real critique of the video. People saying "Oh it's boring, it's wrong, it's just opinion," but never actually citing anything directly, or arguing anything. You know, if you don't want to be interpreted as a misogynist you should probably pretend to respect women enough to actually argue with them instead of dismissing them out of hand.

u wot m8

i posted a crit on the video that holds up

Quote from Jetsetlemming

You know, if you don't want to be interpreted as a misogynist you should probably pretend to respect women enough to actually argue with them instead of dismissing them out of hand.

Don't insinuate things. Such foul rhetoric is, you know, disrespectful.

And please go back and read the thread again because valid criticisms and comments regarding the topic have been made by multiple users which wouldn't be the case if it was dismissed out of hand.

Quote from Rick_D

I watched the whole 'Man Woman Myth' series on youtube, it was really interesting and highlighted a lot of problems with media and cultures aprroach to male/female equality; for example women are focused on very heavily whereas men are maligned and treated as numbers, a good example is when soldiers, firefights, pile, etc die or are injured on the job the classic line is "10 firefighters were killed today", or "9 firefighters and a woman were killed today", and so on. men are virtually 100% of workplace deaths, men have no rights in family courts, men are treated as rapists almost by default. Now this pisses me off because I know many of these things are unfair, but that is from my personal experience. But how can I possibly know what it's like from the other side?

Same with these "Women in the Video Game Industry" incentives. I find it very easy to get offended that companies are focusing on women, and providing benefits and honouring women in the games industry just for the simple fact that they are women. It's easy for me to feel that it's completely unfair, where is my trophy, where are my benefits? But then I see threads and opinions like this and suddenly it's not such a big deal; there's obviously a problem if people are doing something about it.

TL;DR for dux and sentura: fuck you lmao

Some good points here imo. The "9 firefighters and a women were killed today"-story has, at least in sweden, spurred "mens rights activists" to promote an equivelent of feminism but for men. And so the "It's all unfair-mudslinging" rages on from both sides. I'd rather look at this from a biological point of view. The reason why the death of men have, and always have been regarded as mear numbers is that men are dispensible. A tribe of 10 men and 1 women has slim chances of survival due to the cap on reproduction. A tribe of 1 man and 10 women though are able to gain numbers very quickly. Thus the fairly small long term impact on demographics from devastating wars (devestating for men but not for the longevity of the tribe/nation).

Men are sent to war, men have the most dangerous jobs and men made the risky vouyages to unmapped territory discovering and colonizing the new world. Men are more prone to take risks (due to differences in our hormonal composition) and this makes sense since men are more dispensible. And I think this history of risk taking and adventure is often reflected in video games. Modern men might spend most of their time in cubicles staring at screens only to go home and masturbate to another screen. But men still yearn for risk and adventure. And since men we're the first to discover and create the gaming medium, most of the games reflect this. There will probably be a gradual change when more women get involved and a diversification of genres. But I don't think the Battlefields, and the Assassins creeds of the industry should be forcibly made more appealing to women simply because I think this change would make them equally less appealing to men.

I don’t know if I really want to drag this into men’s rights because it looks a bit egocentric, but I will say male activism is in a really rocky place right now. Pretty much everyone will say they are a feminist, because its colloquial meaning is fixing injustices that society has dealt women. It doesn’t mean you necessarily subscribe to concepts like rape culture, gender being construct of society, history rewrites on suffrage, whatever the hell this is, etc. It just means equality, and only an asshole doesn’t want equality.

MRAs do not have this nice bedrock to build from, most people only become MRAs after being dealt injustice themselves making it a much more bitter and hostile movement, and even trying to raise awareness

. I wouldn’t deny men are in a better position, but they do have issues of higher importance than, say, video games and there shouldn’t be a severe social stigma associated with raising them... And with that I’m done!

Back to women and video games... One thread I saw a few times on twitter and reddit, during the latest media contriversy of Epic saying the Gears of War demographic would prefer male protagonists, was the idea of getting more women into the games industry to make the games they want to play. This was mainly met with a hostility and opposition that I found surprising - I’m guessing this is because it shows an unwillingness to be inclusive from men and/or because realistically this just isn’t going to happen any time soon?

I think women already have the rights and opportunities to get into the industry. It's on them to show interest for the jobs, to practice their skills and to educate themself like we all do. I don't think any sane person would oppose that.

But when people suggest quotas for women in this industry to fix "the problem" that annoys me.

It's like as if there is discrimination in the hiring process that needs to be fixed but i don't think that's the case. I think any game company would gladly welcome qualified females to improve diversity in their work force. But the reality is that way more young males find an interest in doing game stuff. So anything that aims at destroying job opportunities for those who actualy show interest, skill and initiative all by themselfes is bound to create hostility.

This is all getting a bit off topic or maybe not because that feminist issues get project on pretty much everything that happens in the world is one of the main reasons people have a problem with Anitas agenda. It's not really about tropes in video games or is it?

Quote from Sentura

u wot m8

i posted a crit on the video that holds up

You mean your post on the first page that Chimeray mistook for reposting a troll?

Quote from Steppenwolf

Don't insinuate things. Such foul rhetoric is, you know, disrespectful.

And please go back and read the thread again because valid criticisms and comments regarding the topic have been made by multiple users which wouldn't be the case if it was dismissed out of hand.

Like I said, I see blanket statements about corruption and invalidity without anyone actually citing anything that's wrong in the video, or corrupt about Sarkeesian. I mean, for God's sake, linking the donate page on her website, or posting her LinkedIn, neither of which contain anything at all questionable?? What on earth does that prove? That she wants money? So does every single other person on earth. She's trying to make a living doing something that she finds socially valuable. So am I. I would hope most people would try to make their day jobs into something useful.

So now, what two people, posting about her being corrupt equates to the entire forum. Good job man...

Go home Jetsetlemming, you're drunk.

The only media organizations/groups I regularly follow that don't consistently ask for donations from viewers are Giant Bomb and The Rachel Maddow Show, both of which are properties of major corporations (CBS and General Electric respectively). Everyone else, every podcast, every website, asks for donations. Most of the game servers I regularly play on ask for donations. This isn't some sinister fucking thing, guys, it's a way of free content to try and make money. You don't have to pay anyone a dime if you don't want to to watch a Youtube video.

Quote from Vilham

So now, what two people posting about her being corrupt equates to the entire forum. Good job man...

Go home Jetsetlemming, you're drunk.

Much like Koko above, you don't seem to have understood what I said at all. This thread, and the posts in it, are not the entire forum. If there are intelligent, detailed discussions about the video somewhere else on Mapcore, please link me.

Yet again you generalise, now about podcasts and websites. You seem to have a brilliant nack for generalisation.

Seriously. Go home you're drunk.

Jetsetlemming the whole point of Anita's videos is to promote discussion about sexism, depictions of women in games, etc. And if you read through this thread (particularly pages three and four) you'll find some well-considered contributions to the discussion. I'm not sure why you're having a go at people for trying to have a serious, constructive chat about the topic rather than listing issues with the video.

I will admit that I personally found the video lacking and didn't do justice to a big topic, something I found disappointing considering the excellent backing it had. But the subject as a whole is very important and I'm delighted to see the video has at least sparked off good conversation about it in many forums and sites across the web, including this one (excluding retarded comments like d3's).

Quote from Vilham

Yet again you generalise, now about podcasts and websites. You seem to have a brilliant nack for generalisation.

Seriously. Go home you're drunk.

I was talking about podcasts and websites I follow. I was specifically citing my own experience with the internet and new media, and how they use patronage, voluntary user contribution, to function. I was actually using the exact opposite of generalization to make my point, Vilham.

Reading your posts makes me feel like I'm reading youtube comments.

Quote from Thrik

Jetsetlemming the whole point of Anita's videos is to promote discussion about sexism, depictions of women in games, etc. And if you read through this thread (particularly pages three and four) you'll find some well-considered contributions to the discussion. I'm not sure why you're having a go at people for trying to have a serious, constructive chat about the topic rather than listing issues with the video.

I will admit that I personally found the video lacking and didn't do justice to a big topic, something I found disappointing considering the excellent backing it had. But the subject as a whole is very important and I'm delighted to see the video has at least sparked off good conversation about it in many forums and sites across the web, including this one (excluding retarded comments like d3's).

I agree, actually. There's been some interesting (though frequently disagreeable, personally) discussion on gender in general. However, while I have seen many people attack the video in the OP, nobody's actually criticized any individual element of it, just overarching statements like "It's boring" or comments about the person who made it, and I feel like that speaks to the point of view CampaignJunkie was expressing. The point Rick made about thinking about other people and how they might not view things the way you view them is important.

Jetsetlemming i don't see your detailed critique of her video either. So stop stomping on others for not doing it.

Please feel free to explain why you agree with her that Peaches hurts young girls for instance. And for your own credibility sake stop generalising and make blanket statements yourself. You make yourself look like a fool insinuating these things while being one of the prime examples in this thread.

Personaly i don't think the video is worth my time to watch it again and critique it in detail because a) i don't disagree with the message that tropes are a problem (tho for different reasons as i explained) b) it's too shallow for an indepth analysis (i mean come on she doesn't provide any data or evidence for her claims it's just her opinions). Also this is not her first video and will not be her last so it's fair enough to discuss both her agenda and the tropes in a broader fashion.

"Everyone else, every podcast, every website, asks for donations." Every.. means all. So actually that is a huge generalisation. I don't actually know of a single podcast that asks for donations. But you don't seem me claiming some absolute truth.

Quote from Steppenwolf

Jetsetlemming i don't see your detailed critique of her video either. So stop stomping on others for not doing it.

Please feel free to explain why you agree with her that Peaches hurts young girls for instance.

I posted about the specific content in my first post in this thread, but overall I don't feel the need to carefully break down and point out everything I agree with in a video that, overall, I agree with. I'm asking the people who DON'T agree with it to be more specific in their criticisms, because their comments so far have come off as dismissive, which has rubbed people (not just me, not just here) the wrong way.

Quote from Vilham

"Everyone else, every podcast, every website, asks for donations." Every.. means all. So actually that is a huge generalisation. I don't actually know of a single podcast that asks for donations. But you don't seem me claiming some absolute truth.

"The only media organizations/groups I regularly follow that don't consistently ask for donations from viewers are Giant Bomb and The Rachel Maddow Show, both of which are properties of major corporations (CBS and General Electric respectively). Everyone else, every podcast, every website, asks for donation".

See, that sentence you quoted, it's a sequel. It directly follows the sentence before it, the "Everyone else" opener ties them together, much like how Crisis 2 starts with the NPC from Crisis 1 giving you the nanosuit. It's context. My point was not that "Everyone everywhere on the internet asks for donations," but rather "Asking for donations is a common and benign form of funding a thing that I see all the time, I don't get why anyone would point out a donation page as a sign of corruption." Do you see now?

I think a lot of the criticism about donations stems from the fact that this video series got an unprecedented level of funding. I've had discussions elsewhere about how Kickstarter itself could handle this phenomenon as it's sure to happen again.

More transparency concerning how excess funds are used will probably help calm people's fears that projects attaining huge funds will spend most of the money recklessly or on personal stuff — something which can and has happened already with numerous Kickstarter projects, including ironically enough a 'male tropes in video games' Kickstarter that was set up to to counter/mock Anita's project. Scams are already starting to become a big thing on Kickstarter and I suspect a lot of people began thinking Anita was going that way considering it took quite a lot of time for the first video to come out and the results (so far) are questionable.

On top of that, the huge amount of funding the videos got and hype that went along with it has probably raised peoples' expectations to unrealistic levels, so no matter what she puts out it's going to disappoint. The fact that this video has been rabidly posted all over the internet by Anita's fans probably hasn't helped, as people often instinctively reject things that're making lots of headlines (like people who think they're too cool for memes).

In my case I think my expectations were relatively tame and I was still left a little wanting by the first video, but I'm receptive to the rest of the series being better. And I'd rather not spend too much time going into specific reasons I didn't enjoy the video because that's kind of like asking someone to explain why they don't like a certain TV show or documentary. Some draw you in and hook you, some don't. For me, Anita's didn't.

But I do respect her message and cause, and while she might not be the best spokesperson for it it's great to see that people are actually taking time to discuss this topic in detail. In that sense she's succeeded wonderfully.