Jen was(or still is?) a LD at Gearbox or was it Bungie(?).
I haven't heard of many female level designers at all really. I know one girl who makes awesome tracks for Trackmania. Then ther's Angelmapper who worked for Epic i think. That's all i can think of.
Quote from SteppenwolfThis. Tho i care more about the harmful part. What's considered sexist i think ther's a big semantic gap between what i would define as such and what a dogmatic feminist defines as sexist.
(sorry for late reply)
I think you've misinterpreted her profession and role in this. She is not a sociologist and she is not concerned with proving why stereotypes are harmful. She’s a media critic and this is the perspective she provides for her videos. Some posts here point out that the solution is to provide more balanced narratives and portrayals – and I agree with that – however, there is also help in making people acknowledge and recognize these stereotypes so consumers are consciously prepared when they are exposed to it. This is what she does and she does it well in my opinion.
I’m not sure what your criteria for proof would be, but it’s almost impossible for me to prove that (e.g.) Peach, as a damsel in distress, directly causes <person> to perform <sexist act>. What I can do is show that;
* Peach is objectified
* The objectification is portrayed as normal/non-issue
* Humans can absorb this subconsciously.
* Stereotypes like these can lead to discrimination.
When I replied to your “malicious intend” post it was to point out that their intentions doesn’t really matter. Art is about expressing ideas and some ideas can be expressed without the author realizing it. As you’ve pointed out yourself, artist are and should be perfectly free to communicate whatever ideas or opinions they have, however it’s also in the consumers freedom to point out when harmful (and inaccurate) stereotypes occur.
Damsel in distress doesn't have to be a problem in itself. It’s when characters exist solely for this purpose that it’s a problem. When they have no agency or influence on the story other than being an object that is to be attained. As Anita mentions, the damsel in distress trope perpetuates a subject-object dichotomy. The subject (Mario) acts and the object (Peach) is acted upon. Peach is reduced to a prize to be won/object to be attained. She is represented as weak and incapable without the help of Mario.
The harmful impact of stereotypes is fairly well researched in social psychology. I honestly don’t see much point in arguing for this unless you are a sociology denialist. I will provide evidence for this if you request it.
I’ll concede a few things;
* I took Peach as an example because she’s the worst offender. Zelda is a better character.
* There is no doubt that this can be interpreted in other ways as well. You could argue that it’s Mario that is being the object of her affections. That her affections are valued enough for Mario to risk his life to attain it. I don’t agree with this interpretation 
I'm not supporting everything she says. I don't really have strong leanings either way on this because it's a complicated issue for me. Presenting a side here and having you (or others) criticize it helps me understand it better.
Quote from Rick_DExternal Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
I like that video. Someone has posted a few valid points about it;
Thanks for your lenghty reply csvyer.
I think you've misinterpreted her profession and role in this. She is not a sociologist and she is not concerned with proving why stereotypes are harmful. She’s a media critic and this is the perspective she provides for her videos. Some posts here point out that the solution is to provide more balanced narratives and portrayals – and I agree with that – however, there is also help in making people acknowledge and recognize these stereotypes so consumers are consciously prepared when they are exposed to it. This is what she does and she does it well in my opinion.
I don't think it matters what her profession is. If someone makes a strong claim i expect strong supporting evidence or i just can't take them serious if my own common sense, experience and knowledge tells me that they are most likely wrong. It's the same with religious or political matters and other strong claims. I'm open to change my mind but that takes more then appeals to emotion. I try to be as rational and reasonable as possible in my thinking.
I’m not sure what your criteria for proof would be, but it’s almost impossible for me to prove that (e.g.) Peach, as a damsel in distress, directly causes <person> to perform <sexist act>. What I can do is show that;* Peach is objectified
* The objectification is portrayed as normal/non-issue
* Humans can absorb this subconsciously.
* Stereotypes like these can lead to discrimination.
I would for example take it into consideration if she interviewed young girls playing the game how they feel about it and they would express some things that make me think about the matter in a different way. What you "show" here is again just opinion, claims and it's not clear cut at all. The video that Taylor posted made some good points about the fallaciousness of the objectivication points. I agree about your last two points there but find a correlation in this particular context of Princess Peaches very doubtful and therefore fallacious.
When I replied to your “malicious intend” post it was to point out that their intentions doesn’t really matter. Art is about expressing ideas and some ideas can be expressed without the author realizing it.
I mentioned malicious intend because to me that's an important criteria to define if something is actualy sexist or just ignorant or in fact not sexist at all. But that's just semantics and my own definition which isn't necessarely the one that you would find in a dictionary.
As you’ve pointed out yourself, artist are and should be perfectly free to communicate whatever ideas or opinions they have, however it’s also in the consumers freedom to point out when harmful (and inaccurate) stereotypes occur.
That's perfectly fine but remember these criticisms, like Anita's videos, are then subject to scrutinity themself. It would be wrong to take any opinion on the internet at face value.
Damsel in distress doesn't have to be a problem in itself. It’s when characters exist solely for this purpose that it’s a problem. When they have no agency or influence on the story other than being an object that is to be attained. As Anita mentions, the damsel in distress trope perpetuates a subject-object dichotomy. The subject (Mario) acts and the object (Peach) is acted upon. Peach is reduced to a prize to be won/object to be attained. She is represented as weak and incapable without the help of Mario.
And that's just wrong as the guy in Taylor's video has pointed out in better words then i ever could.
The harmful impact of stereotypes is fairly well researched in social psychology. I honestly don’t see much point in arguing for this unless you are a sociology denialist. I will provide evidence for this if you request it.
Ther's no doubt stereotypes can be harmful but you have to look careful at the context, if a correlation exists and what the nature of the stereotype is. There are positive stereotypes too you know like "Germans are always on time", "Asians are good at math" etc. Same way one could argue for positive stereotypes in the Damsel in Distress trope like "Damsel is the loveliest thing in the world and worth fighting for".
I’ll concede a few things;* I took Peach as an example because she’s the worst offender. Zelda is a better character.
* There is no doubt that this can be interpreted in other ways as well. You could argue that it’s Mario that is being the object of her affections. That her affections are valued enough for Mario to risk his life to attain it. I don’t agree with this interpretation
Yea basicly we can agree on that. Same what i wrote in the paragraph above.
regarding stereotypes. this study suggests that even positive ones have harmful impact: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articl…022103112002211
(i'll get to the other stuff later when I have time)
regarding stereotypes. this study suggests that even positive ones have harmful impact: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/articl…022103112002211
(i'll get to the other stuff later when I have time)
Fair enough. I guess the "Germans are always on time" positive stereotype also correlates with the "Germans don't have a sense of humor" negative stereotype. Just shows that nothing is clear cut and that it certainly doesn't hurt to discuss opinions from different view points.
Quote from SteppenwolfFair enough. I guess the "Germans are always on time" positive stereotype also correlates with the "Germans don't have a sense of humor" negative stereotype. Just shows that nothing is clear cut and that it certainly doesn't hurt to discuss opinions from different view points.
Calling this "harmful" is a bit of semantic legerdemain. You can see exactly the bogus, non-scientific perspective this paper comes from just by looking at the Highlights listed on the page (sadly, I'm not willing to pay $30 to actually look at this)...
► Positive stereotypes are especially detrimental to egalitarian social perception.
Translation: When people acknowledge stereotypical traits they are less likely to believe the notion that human beings/groups are all equal in every way. (This is hardly harmful unless you think acknowledging the truth is harmful.)
► Exposure to a positive stereotype led to increased essentialism.
Translation: People who acknowledge a stereotype understand that many personal and behavioral traits that we as human animals are endowed with are a result of our genetic heritage. (This undermines the silly notion that human beings are blank slates to be shaped by culture.)
► Exposure to a positive stereotype led to increased application of prejudicial beliefs.
Translation: When you believe a thing to be true, you often act as if you believe that thing is true. (Duh. Tautological.)
Stephen Pinker's 2002 book The Blank Slate goes into great detail into debunking the blank slate, evolution-denying mentality we see here. Definitely worth a look if this topic is of interest.
Some good points there Wail.
I think i could change my opinion on some details or semantics with the right argumentations on offer. But at this point i don't think anything can convince me that the Peaches character by itself is harmful in any way, shape or form. It's just too ridiculous a notion. And i only keep mentioning her because shes one of the main hooks in Anita's video. I would probably give more credit to her opinions if the video was about exploitation porn or something of that caliber.
Quote from SteppenwolfAnd that's just wrong as the guy in Taylor's video has pointed out in better words then i ever could.
I hadn’t actually seen the video before you referred to it. When I did see it I noticed a pretty familiar voice and tone in it. I like a few of Thunderf00t videos, but he seems to have a personal beef with feminists and isn’t really at his most rational with these issues. There are major flaws in this video. It’s reeking of straw men arguments and invalid comparisons;
(This is where his hatred for feminists really shines through. He uses this comparison to say that Anita is inhuman)
We could say Peach was a chest of gold and it wouldn’t really make any difference. The only characteristic that Peach has is that she is a woman. We are supposed to care solely because of this fact. She exists only so that she can be saved.
I remember seeing his atheist-videos when I was about 16 and he gave me the impression of a very rational and knowledgeable person taking on religious thinking. Had he sticked to that I would probably have the same opinion of him now. Now he’s mass-producing straw man arguments, ad hominem, appealing to emotion (why the fuck is there a 5 minute clip of Star Trek?) and exhibiting the same degree of lunacy you would see in his former creationist opponents.
- He tries to excuse the sexism in the damsel in distress-trope by saying that the man loves the woman. The stereotype is not based on “rescuing a loved one”, but based on rescuing (exclusively) women. The women can be a love interest, but the stereotype here is that it’s always women that have to be rescued and not men.
Shame that isn't remotely true though. It isn't always women being rescued by men, ever played mirrors edge for example. Hence why her entire rant is just bullshit generalisation of an entire industry that employs hundreds of thousands based on a few games.
Quote from VilhamShame that isn't remotely true though. It isn't always women being rescued by men, ever played mirrors edge for example. Hence why her entire rant is just bullshit generalisation of an entire industry that employs hundreds of thousands based on a few games.
I didn't mean to say that it's 100%, always, every single time (etc.) the case for all existing video game. Are you arguing that the damsel in distress-trope is balanced when measured up to the games that have men that needs rescuing or with female leads rescuing? http://tropesversuswomen.tumblr.com/
btw; aren't you still rescuing a woman in mirror's edge?
You may not be claiming that. But she is. That is her whole thing. Generalising the industry and claiming its misogynistic. Which is why I can't take her seriously, anymore than I would take the Westbro batist church or the BNP or the golden dawn etc seriously. Because their entire basis is genearlisation.
That link you posted, first page, batman rescuing woman, evidence of the game being sexist right?
O wait in the same game you rescue batman as cat woman.
Rescuing a woman is not inherently sexist and to claim it is is incredibly ignorant and actual degrades womans' rights movements in countries that actually struggle with sexism. I think Sarkeesian (and through your defense of her, you) fail to understand what sexism actually is.
As to mirrors edge, yeah you are. Sorry is that sexist? I guess that overrides the fact that its a story element as you as a female character are rescuing your sister (also that the hardest boss in the game happens to also be a woman). Seriously, you guys are grasping at straws.
Adding to the link, you rescue the girl in Psychonauts along with around 5 other male characters, guess that's sexist too though.
Sarah kerrigan, only the most powerful human in existence in the SC2 universe, that requires an entire planetary invasion and a magical device to restrain before turning her back into a normal human.
Rescuing a woman is definitely not inherently sexist. I agree 100% on that. If it were an isolated case it wouldn't be an issue at all. The problem is that it's used consistently and sometimes by the same authors (e.g. Nintendo).
I'm looking at the transcript and I can't see that she's claiming what you're saying. I did however find this;
Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it’s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.
The transcript is here if you want to direct me to what part we're talking about; http://www.feministfrequency.com/2013/03/damsel-in-distress-part-1/
edit: ps, i'm not claiming that mirror's edge is sexist or that it's anything very wrong with that narrative. i just wanted to point out that it wasn't necessarily the best example. i didn't know of the female boss part either.
"Used consistently". Check that link you posted, the vast majority of the games on that list are 80-90s games, are we really using that as evidence that the current industry is some how sexist.
"The good news is that there is nothing stopping developers from evolving their gender representations and making more women heroes in future games"
Guess what, they already have. Maybe if she played some games from the last 10 years and didn't pick 13 games out of about 60 mario games that don't let you play Princess Peach she might find what she is claiming doesn't exist. Seriously, are we actually debating a video that is so obviously bias that in the scientific world it would be the equivalent of BP writing a paper saying petrol doesn't produce carbon when burnt.
If she doesn't want to be implying that she should probably be a little more consistent with her previous statements and presentations. One sentence in your video doesn't override the implied theme of the last 500. Sorry, but that is called shitty writing and as a critic that should really be her strength.
"Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women."
This sentence is also not backed up by anything, just because she says or believes something doesn't make it a legitimate argument. In conclusion she really needs to work on her arguments, because they are extremely weak, and that isn't to say that there might be some truth to some of her claims, unfortunately she has only helped to damage those claims.
PS done with debating this.
This video was about older games and the history of this trope. Part 2 will be about contemporary games:
Ok, so we’ve established that the Damsel in Distress trope is one of the most widely used gendered cliché in the history of video games and has been core to the popularization and development of gaming as a medium. But what about more modern games? Has anything changed in the past ten years? Well, stay tuned for part 2 where I’ll be looking at more contemporary examples of the Damsel in Distress trope.
i'm sure all of mapcore is looking forward to this thread talking about every single episode she releases. this thread is going to be here forever!!! 
I hadn’t actually seen the video before you referred to it. When I did see it I noticed a pretty familiar voice and tone in it. I like a few of Thunderf00t videos, but he seems to have a personal beef with feminists and isn’t really at his most rational with these issues. There are major flaws in this video. It’s reeking of straw men arguments and invalid comparisons;
Dismissing someone purely based on things he said in the past is a fallacy too. Personaly i find nothing wrong with his video and his argumentation.
Storytelling is not reality. You can’t compare “rescuing a loved one” in real life to rescuing someone in fiction. In real life everyone has personalities and a backstory – in fiction we choose what backstory and portrayals there are. We choose how to portray the story.
I'm sure he made this comparison as a reaction to Anita's view who goes even a step further. She doesn't just compare it with real life but draws wild conclusions about how these fictional stories/characters actualy influence real life (like her assumption that a picture of half naked Bayonetta promotes sexual assault in the subway station where it's displayed). She compares the Damsel with onbejctified women in real life, he compares them with loved ones in real life. If anything both are wrong on this one if what you say is correct.
He tries to excuse the sexism in the damsel in distress-trope by saying that the man loves the woman. The stereotype is not based on “rescuing a loved one”, but based on rescuing (exclusively) women. The women can be a love interest, but the stereotype here is that it’s always women that have to be rescued and not men.
So what is wrong with saving women? And why exactly is the Damsel characterization sexist by default? Something that i'm really struggling with to acknowledge because in my view it doesn't say anything about females in general but just about the individual character that it portrays. It would be different if all female characters in games were damsel's. which is far from truth. To be fair not even Anita says that all Damsels are sexist but then she fails to explain what for example makes Peaches characterization sexist and some other Damsel not.
He also somehow achieves to compare himself to the character’s motivations. We are not the protagonist and it’s not our girlfriend/love interest/whatever. We control the protagonist but we don’t know how he feels about the damsel unless we are told.
Again that's something that Anita does too, the identification with the characters. If you hold that against him you have to hold it against her too. My own stance which i explained a few pages earlier is that i don't tend to identify with the characters like they were me. I'm a role player at heart.
Because that in one Double Dragon game the woman gets to punch her captors in the balls (after he has been defeated) – then everything is justified? Ridiculous.
It shows the culture shift at work. Anita goes on and on about these vintage games in her video to say something about the state of culture today. He point's merely out that she didn't research properly for a game that she uses to make her point.
For some reason he thinks that when Anita means “weak/strong” she refers exclusively to physical strength. He then wastes several minutes on referring to data that proves this physical difference.
She doesn't exactly explain what she means. So lets count this as semantic misunderstanding.
It’s perfectly possible to make a game that doesn’t insult women and are successful. By “excusing” the sexism because of profit he is actually making Anita’s point stronger.
Not all women are insulted by the games that use the trope. I would argue most not even care but that's just a hunch.
Also he's pointing something out that plays a fundamental role for why the trope is in use, something that Anite doesn't even mention and most likely don't acknowlege because it takes wind out of the sails for her argument that sexist attitudes, patriarchy etc is at the core.
We could say Peach was a chest of gold and it wouldn’t really make any difference. The only characteristic that Peach has is that she is a woman. We are supposed to care solely because of this fact. She exists only so that she can be saved.
Yes you could replace her with a gold chest. Shows how simple the story is and that people really shouldn't interpret too much into it. Also people play Mario because they like to jump around not because they care about the story either way.
I remember seeing his atheist-videos when I was about 16 and he gave me the impression of a very rational and knowledgeable person taking on religious thinking. Had he sticked to that I would probably have the same opinion of him now. Now he’s mass-producing straw man arguments, ad hominem, appealing to emotion (why the fuck is there a 5 minute clip of Star Trek?) and exhibiting the same degree of lunacy you would see in his former creationist opponents.
Wait did we even watch the same video? Ther's nothing even remotely in his video that reminds me of creationist crap.
Quote from SteppenwolfDismissing someone purely based on things he said in the past is a fallacy too. Personaly i find nothing wrong with his video and his argumentation.
I did not do that. I'm dismissing it based on the criticism written below that paragraph. The reason I mentioned that was to hopefully evoke skepticism to his videos.
Quote from SteppenwolfI'm sure he made this comparison as a reaction to Anita's view who goes even a step further. She doesn't just compare it with real life but draws wild conclusions about how these fictional stories/characters actualy influence real life (like her assumption that a picture of half naked Bayonetta promotes sexual assault in the subway station where it's displayed). She compares the Damsel with onbejctified women in real life, he compares them with loved ones in real life. If anything both are wrong on this one if what you say is correct.
The Bayonetta example has nothing to do with the damsel in distress trope. It does not invalidate what she said about damsel in distress just because an unrelated example is invalid.
Quote from SteppenwolfSo what is wrong with saving women? And why exactly is the Damsel characterization sexist by default? Something that i'm really struggling with to acknowledge because in my view it doesn't say anything about females in general but just about the individual character that it portrays. It would be different if all female characters in games were damsel's. which is far from truth. To be fair not even Anita says that all Damsels are sexist but then she fails to explain what for example makes Peaches characterization sexist and some other Damsel not.
So for you to agree it takes that virtually every single female character is a damsel in distress? I explained this earlier. It's not that it's sexist in itself. It's because it's done consistently to a degree that makes it a stereotype and offensive. I agree that she should have done a better job explaining the distinction between a sexist damsel and one who's not.
Quote from SteppenwolfIt shows the culture shift at work. Anita goes on and on about these vintage games in her video to say something about the state of culture today. He point's merely out that she didn't research properly for a game that she uses to make her point.
The example is perfectly valid and does demonstrate her point. As I said, just because she "punches" the defeated villain (who is incapacitated falls with his penis on her fist) does not justify it. In the 99% remaining part of the game she is still a trophy without any agency. You can't justify it with just an afterthought.
Not all women are insulted by the games that use the trope. I would argue most not even care but that's just a hunch.Also he's pointing something out that plays a fundamental role for why the trope is in use, something that Anite doesn't even mention and most likely don't acknowlege because it takes wind out of the sails for her argument that sexist attitudes, patriarchy etc is at the core.
Whether they are insulted (by Peach as a character) or not doesn't have to matter. It's the repercussions (stereotypes -> discrimination) of this that is important and if no one is insulted then that makes her video all the more important. "Also he's pointing something out that plays a fundamental role for why the trope is in use" not sure what you mean here, could you clarify?
Yes you could replace her with a gold chest. Shows how simple the story is and that people really shouldn't interpret too much into it. Also people play Mario because they like to jump around not because they care about the story either way.
If this was an isolated example then I would agree. However, it is consistently used as a plot device for almost every single core Mario game.
Quote from SteppenwolfWait did we even watch the same video? Ther's nothing even remotely in his video that reminds me of creationist crap.
He employs the similar rhetoric (mentioned ad hominem, straw man, appealing to emotion etc.)
This is turning into circular arguments now, everybody pointing at fallacies. Guess we have to agree to disagree.
Still haven't read anything yet that convinces me of her claims to be true. Your (and Anitas) argumentation makes sense under the premises that patriarchic conspiracy is at work, that actual real people have been harmed by these games, that no factors outside sexism/misogony come into question and so on. The evidence presented is thin to non existent, correlations and causations far fetched. It reminds me of people saying "the bible is true because the bible says so". It really follows the same scheme 'Anita is right about these tropes being sexist because in her video she says they are sexist'. I know that are not your words but you repeat her arguments like gospel.
if no one is insulted then that makes her video all the more important.
Anyway, 11 more episodes to come. Thread's gonna be epic 
if we ask the extrapolation-o-tron this thread will be at least 110 pages!
get your popcorn ready guys
Well, next time everyone will wait for thunderf00t and InuitInua to point out any bad evidence and logical fallacies for them to work from. This has been ten pages of people trying to make points through a minefield of linguistic traps while stressing they totally don’t hate women.
Quote from SteppenwolfThis is turning into circular arguments now, everybody pointing at fallacies. Guess we have to agree to disagree.
Still haven't read anything yet that convinces me of her claims to be true. Your (and Anitas) argumentation makes sense under the premises that patriarchic conspiracy is at work, that actual real people have been harmed by these games, that no factors outside sexism/misogony come into question and so on. The evidence presented is thin to non existent, correlations and causations far fetched. It reminds me of people saying "the bible is true because the bible says so". It really follows the same scheme 'Anita is right about these tropes being sexist because in her video she says they are sexist'. I know that are not your words but you repeat her arguments like gospel.
.
I'm not sure how you expect me to argue for her case without discussing the premises for her statements. What I'm doing here is replying to your criticisms of her arguments in the video. I've replied and explained why I don't think that criticism holds up and thus I think her points remain valid. Some of my replies are observations which are perfectly falsifiable (such as paragraph six; in what degree peach is used as a damsel in distress in core games). It's a bit tiring to then be constantly accused of begging the question and/or parroting her.
The parts about thunderf00t+feminism, bayonetta, creationism are unrelated/unconstructive yes. I too wouldn't mind postponing further discussion until her next video. When is the next part due, anyway?
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
