Feminist Frequency

[youmeyou]

Looks like it's finally out! Sweet!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q

 

 

Good subject to start with, clearly a TON of subject matter out there to support her argument. I had only just finished reading more on Jason Rohrer's "Castle Doctrine" http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/07/castle-doctrine-preview-2/ one of the central aims of which is protecting your property, including your wife and family, from intruders.

 

edit: having trouble embedding for some reason. argh.

[castorp]

Yeah, it does not seem to work right now.

I really really like the first episode. Very well done! While the trope is probably the most known one this scientific dissection introduced (to me that is) and articulated some interesting thoughts. Now I'm eager for the next episode.

[Argobot]

Yeah, that was pretty much the best way to start the series off. Really excited to see the second video where she talks about more modern games.

[Patrick R]

Posted this in the YouTube thread. Truly excellent. 

[SecretAsianMan]

That was really good and extremely well thought out.  I'm really interested to see the next one.

 

Also, I couldn't help but laugh out loud at the phrase "damsel ball".  Ugh, I'm terrible.

[Luftmensch]

This is definitely a video that benefits from the HTML5 speed options. Considering basically zero parts of the video meaningfully benefitted from the visual elements, except for a few vintage ads that could have been easily removed without any real loss, it's disappointing there isn't an audio only version (if there is I didn't find it).

I'm still totally not won over by the delivery either. The video lacks any personality, which would be fine if she didn't insist on taking 20 minutes of purely academic study and suddenly start calling it "regressive crap". Nothing in her delivery was interesting, the soundscape was flat, the humor was dry. Seriously, there's nothing that makes this video special except the reputation. This same material may as well have been published in text on The Escapist. Based purely on the quality and depth of the research and writing, I would be astonished if anyone without prior knowledge of her reputation and thought this was anything more than a sophomore project for a college feminism class (if it was, it would get an F because its completely uncited).

Anyway, I'm in the mood for being contrary (as usual), and maybe that's why I'm not impressed. Or because of the reasons I said.

Edit: Uncited is an entirely inaccurate description: Clearly there's plenty of citation. But none of it is listed in a bibliography, none of the definitions are backed by any authoritative sources, there's no list of games that appear in the video. The "Hundreds of Examples" claim literally demands you just take her word for it. Which, fine, if you can definitively provide the research that shows, yes, here are hundreds of catalogued examples, than you will have research. Otherwise you have a bland video making unoriginal claims and zero new contributions to the discussion.

[jeremywc]

I thought it was well researched and presented in a very even handed manner. There really isn't a need to get super passionate and angry when there is so much evidence to support her case. Just present the facts along with some offending clips of a bunch of popular games and you've got all the proof you need. The game industry has spent a lot of time putting their own head in a noose here. She's just pointing out what was already blatantly obvious to anyone with even a modicum of critical thinking ability.

 

Anyway, I've been reserving judgement until I saw the first piece, but she definitely won me over. I'm interested to see the rest of the series.

[ItsMeYourFriend]

compare to: http://www.gameranx.com/features/id/13224/article/the-mystery-and-fraud-of-tropes-vs-men-in-video games/

[Twig]

This is not a slight on the video or the worthiness of the video or the lady speaking or ANYTHING but goddamn I hate large hoop earrings. They are so distracting.

 

Okay I will watch the video now.

[TychoCelchuuu]

The "Hundreds of Examples" claim literally demands you just take her word for it. Which, fine, if you can definitively provide the research that shows, yes, here are hundreds of catalogued examples, than you will have research. 

There's a link to the tumblr in the video description. It only has 110 examples, which isn't hundreds, so you're right, it's 100% bullshit.

 

edit: whoops I just scrolled down she actually does have hundreds of examples (tumblr only loads more in the archive when you scroll down). Go figure! She's right about something. You didn't cite your claim that she lacks hundreds of examples so I'm thinking your post is approximately as bullshit as her video. Or maybe it's more bullshit. Or less! Tough to tell - you don't have any citations so I can't figure it out (and if your post were a paper I'd give it an F for no citations).

 

edit #2: you say "This same material may as well have been published in text on The Escapist" but she did post it in text form so I don't know what the fuck you're complaining about.

[Twig]

I think this video was not for me, because I am already kind of aware of everything she was talking about, and it was so boring I didn't want to finish. I forced myself to, anyway, but I didn't WANT to.

 

That's not to say I don't appreciate what she's doing and why it's necessary, but I wish it wasn't so dull to watch.

[Argobot]

As someone who reads a lot of feminist critical theory, none of the general points brought up in the video were new or revealing, most of the interesting stuff was in the details. The intro bit about the character redesign of Crystal was really fascinating and also really depressing. I don't watch videos like this because I need convincing that female representation in media is messed up--I already know that. I watch videos like this because I'm interested in critical theory, especially when it's well-researched and about cultural subjects that I have an investment in.

 

It's true that there have been hundreds of articles written about women in media, but that has usually only focused on TV/movies/books. Video games have been a generally underrepresented area of study, so projects like this are doing something slightly different than traditional media studies.

 

I think there's a lot of value in this series and others like it, even if you already know or agree with all the issues that are brought up.

[Luftmensch]

It only has 110 examples, which isn't hundreds, so you're right, it's 100% bullshit.

I have a feeling this is about more than whether or not her works are cited to you. I didn't think to follow the link through to the Tumblr page because I figured it was basically just a Tumblr page. Neither the YouTube nor official FeministFrequency page provided anything resembling a bibliography, which was only a bullet hanging on the end of my overall critique.

edit #2: you say "This same material may as well have been published in text on The Escapist" but she did post it in text form so I don't know what the fuck you're complaining about.

I said there wasn't anything in the video that justified itself being filmed instead of just published in text. Why is this a huge emotional concern that I don't like the video? Were your parents murdered by a guy who didn't like your favorite YouTube videos and now you lurk the forums at night hunting down people who don't like your favorite YouTube videos?

Basically I agree with Twig. It's boring and it's stuff I already know.

[ItsMeYourFriend]

Video games have been a generally underrepresented area of study

 

that's a good point. I think most people who are even remotely attuned to feminist theory have been aware of video game's ridiculous portrayal of women for ages, but there are very few examples of people taking the time to explain what is going on, why it's ridiculous, and then gather lots of examples to back it all up. 

 

also i like it because i love it when people are all thorough about things!!

[lobotomy42]

... if she didn't insist on taking 20 minutes of purely academic study and suddenly start calling it "regressive crap".

Not unique to this video at all.  One of the things that bothers me about the "identity politics" (for lack of a better phrase) fields in academia is that they seem to have one foot in academia and one foot in progressive activism, and the two don't always mesh very well.  I get why these fields evolved this way - the academic departments were the outcomes of specific progressive political movements - but I don't think it's entirely intellectually honest to "study" something you're also actively participating in, for basic conflict-of-interest reasons.  And the result shows up occasionally in videos like this, where some basic, honest diagnostics are immediately followed by a moral judgment. 

 

Granted, this is the sort of thing that academics have probably always done, and there's no such thing as pure objectivity, etc, but at least most disciplines have moved in the direction of trying to avoid this sort of thing.

 

As for the video itself, it seems....mostly fine? I don't have much to say about it yet, but maybe that will change as the series progresses.

[TychoCelchuuu]

I have a feeling this is about more than whether or not her works are cited to you. I didn't think to follow the link through to the Tumblr page because I figured it was basically just a Tumblr page. Neither the YouTube nor official FeministFrequency page provided anything resembling a bibliography, which was only a bullet hanging on the end of my overall critique.

Well, your feeling is erroneous, so it might've been more fruitful to just admit that she actually did have citations and it seems like it's your fault for thinking a tumblr page linked with a description that reads "For more examples of the Damsel in Distress see our Tumblr for this series:" would be anything other than more examples (read: citations) of Damsels in Distress to fill out her "there are hundreds of examples" claim.

 

I said there wasn't anything in the video that justified itself being filmed instead of just published in text. Why is this a huge emotional concern that I don't like the video? Were your parents murdered by a guy who didn't like your favorite YouTube videos and now you lurk the forums at night hunting down people who don't like your favorite YouTube videos?

I think you're reading a little too much emotion into me saying "fuck." 

 

Basically I agree with Twig. It's boring and it's stuff I already know.

This is a far cry from "her scholarship is awful because she has no citations and even though she claims there are hundreds of examples, I have to just take it on faith." I find her videos uninformative, unengaging, and unhappily stuck straddling the line lobotomy42 points out, and in fact I haven't bothered to watch this one because I don't need a 20 minute YouTube video to tell me what I already know, especially if the jokes aren't super funny as has been the case for the rest of the stuff I've seen from her.

 

This doesn't mean I can't point out the parts of your criticism that I disagree with, right? For someone who anally picks at the loose threads of every single argument regardless of how useful it is compared to the overall point, I would've thought that my specific, pointed responses to various parts of your post would've been taken by you in the spirit they were offered, namely, refutations of some of the dubious claims you made, and responded to in the same spirit, namely with an admission that your claims were incorrect or with some kind of defense of the claims, instead of simply saying "oh well I didn't bother to click on the citations and you seem to be kind of angry and basically I think the video is boring so somehow this legitimates all the incorrect claims I've made." I mean, if you want to play the whole "the overall message is what matters, stop splitting hairs" thing, then I'm happy to play that game, but given that much of your post was nothing but splitting hairs about her video, I thought I'd unsplit some of the hairs that ought not to have been split.

[Twig]

I watch videos like this because I'm interested in critical theory, especially when it's well-researched and about cultural subjects that I have an investment in.

That's pretty much my main issue with the video. There wasn't any... discussion. It was all rote stuff (whatever that even means, don't judge me). I was hoping it would be more analysis and less facts number 1-5. Maybe part two will be what I want. Not gonna write off the series, yet. We'll see. Maybe it's as simple as I said: this video just isn't made for people like me. It's made for people who are new to the idea of... well, using their brain.

[Thrik]

Sounds worryingly like this video is more about preaching to the choir than providing any compelling analysis. That'd be disappointing considering how much we ended up funding her with to make this actually good. I'll watch it at the weekend, though.

[castorp]

One of the things that bothers me about the "identity politics" (for lack of a better phrase) fields in academia is that they seem to have one foot in academia and one foot in progressive activism, and the two don't always mesh very well.

Mh, to me it seems she could indeed turn this into a paper, she has done her research, she appears to be quite concerned with the language and terms she uses - but that is not it, and it does not want to be. That said, Tycho, you should give this a try - while I'm not very familiar with her other work this seems of a different approach. I like that after all the crap she got and still gets she managed to make the video very levelheaded, mostly scientific - I'd rather say the video was 9 feet academia and only 1 foot activism, and in my opinion she 'earned' that one foot with her research. In short: For me it worked very well, it 'meshed' well, but I can see the problem.

(And then, when the system is unfair, to play by the rules just kind of supports said system, which I guess constitutes a difficult conflict between the need for a purely scientific approach and the need to make your 'pure' science actually heard and matter. But that is not necessarily that related to this video, just something that came to mind.)

…he, I think it's interesting that it only took 7 posts for someone* to comment about what she's wearing. Haha, silly comment, or bait, I get it. That’s what I’m talking about.

*Yeah it’s you Twig, and you are already well versed in the use of your brain, unlike the people who enjoyed the video.

[Twig]

lol wat

[BigJKO]

Maybe it's as simple as I said: this video just isn't made for people like me. It's made for people who are new to the idea of... well, using their brain.

 

What the fuck? 

[Lu]

It's a joke, what's the problem? There's a bunch of men that deny this is even a problem that exists.

[BigJKO]

Sorry, didn't get the joke, I guess. Or find it funny.

[Lu]

Sorry, it reads way bitchier than I intended it to, but it was an actual question.

[BigJKO]

I took issue with what I thought was Twig thinking lesser of this video and declaring himself as the user of brains, and declaring this was made for people who don't use their brains.. Which I took to mean people that enjoyed or thought the video was useful.

 

But I guess I just took it the wrong way. Sorry! And of course, I realise there are people out there that don't even acknowledge the issue.