youmeyou

Feminist Frequency

Recommended Posts

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.

 

But then, who would be the ones to study this field or others like it, if we were to sever the link between political activism and academic theory? It's true that women's studies programs are basically 99.99% composed of feminists (and note I don't say females, I say feminists), because I seriously doubt that someone who doesn't support or is interested in feminist theory would want to study it academically. Is that a conflict of interest? Perhaps. There's certainly an incentive for feminist scholars to highlight issues of sexism whenever possible. Does that mean they let their politics get in the way of their research? Well, I'd argue no more than any other person. Academic study doesn't exist in a vacuum, everyone has a political belief system, and whether they recognize it or not, that influences how they perceive and interpret information. If you had people who didn't believe in feminism as a political movement studying it academically, I don't think they'd be anymore objective in their research, they just might not conclude that sexism is as big of an issue or as prevalent in society as someone who identified or supported feminism.

 

Its true that some feminist scholars overreach in their conclusions because of their activism, but the sad thing is, they usually don't have to overreach far to prove their thesis. There are so many pernicious examples of this stuff that there's no need to over exaggerate to score political points. I really don't think there's anything intellectually dishonest about calling anything in that video 'regressive crap,' because that's what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope she also shows counter examples. It's not like game industry is all bad (right?), and also, it would make her sound one sided, and thereby more of a nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okaaay.... I haven't seen any of her videos before and I was worried when feminist gamers complained that she had no background in gaming and then I heard that she was asking all the KS people to do the homework for her and.... I think I believe it.

 

I don't think she know that much about what's she's talking about, she's just listing games with damsels in distress. She mentions that Nintendo practically invented the damsel in distress, but did she bother to mention Samus Aran? Nope....

 

She says that Kystal from Star Fox adventures was just cheesecake, but does she mention that she actual become part of the team in Star Fox Assault? NOPE!

 

She speaks with UTTER DISGUST about Double Dragon Neon, because "Now you get to see the girls panties in HD!" and she obviously knew nothing about the game since it's well, meant to be bloody ridiculous and not taken seriously. It takes stereotypes from the type and exaggerates them to extremes.

 

She is the pen-ultimate boss who when freed uses the bloody power of love to make you travel through time which obviously turns you into robot.

 

I guess the rumors are right, she might know a lot about feminism, but she doesn't know about games...

 

Oh, and she totally forgot about Peach being a playable character is Super Mario RPG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tycho, my point was that the video was poorly written and executed. My conclusion with the citations left a tiny room for redemption: If only she had citations, than at least she'd have a boring, tone-inconsistent research paper that didn't have any value in being a YouTube video except to get more hits, but she would have actually done research. The fact that she does have research leaves her, as I said from the start, with finally having research and being able to back herself up. It still doesn't give her a well written and produced video, which was what I actually criticized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanukitsune, she mentions that Part 2 will be about modern examples and counter-examples, where I imagine she'd mention Samus Aran.

 

I don't remember exactly but she says none of this is inherently wrong or sexist, just that it's a trope that is reoccuring (in vast numbers), and the Double Dragon damsel definitely fits that trope whether or not you're meant to take it seriously. (Also, whatever the intention of Double Dragon Neon, this was the first time I've seen it and it kinda grossed me out..)

 

It would've been nice if she had mentioned Krystal and Peach getting a more active role in Star Fox Assault and Super Mario RPG, though, but I feel like there's a long way from not acknowledging that to "she doesn't know about games". How much game must one play to have a background in gaming? What is game?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but she doesn't know about games...

I don't see why you have to question her credibility as a gamer to get your point across. And how does in invalidate her point about Peach being the object in 13 out of 13 core Mario platformers when you can play her in the RPG? Yeah right, I call bullshit, I mean look at Jade and her camera!

And though I don't think she has to mention any of the 'counter examples' when she wants to talk about those tropes or in order to not sound like a 'nut' (you serious?), but she did say that she wants to talk about some different takes on the trope in the next episode.

God, I seriously am surprised about the reaction here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its true that some feminist scholars overreach in their conclusions because of their activism, but the sad thing is, they usually don't have to overreach far to prove their thesis. There are so many pernicious examples of this stuff that there's no need to over exaggerate to score political points. I really don't think there's anything intellectually dishonest about calling anything in that video 'regressive crap,' because that's what it is.

It's fine in the theoretical YouTube-edited version of the presentation but there's not really any tonal consistency. I'd be fine if she was willing to own up to her opinions, but by blurting out the phrase "regressive crap" when she does, she sounds more like an adolescent trying to hold a straight face until her emotions get the better of her. It makes her sound like she's not in control of her own presentation and isn't willing to commit one way or another. Far better journalists have been able to present as many words in less time and with a clear, distinct, consistent tone, and been more entertaining and informative in the process.

 

I don't see why you have to question her credibility as a gamer to get your point across. And how does in invalidate her point about Peach being the object in 13 out of 13 core Mario platformers when you can play her in the RPG? Yeah right, I call bullshit, I mean look at Jade and her camera!

That's a point that I avoided, because it seemed petty and the fundamental complaint is still true, but there is a lot of unqualified picking and choosing as to what is "core" Mario. I don't really care because I understood what she meant, but Mario games aren't tied by a chronology and there's a lot of shared gameplay throughout the franchise so you do have to explain where you get the list. Any outsider who doesn't know what is game could look at her list and compare it to the list of all Mario Franchise games and fairly ask, "why are these fourteen of these core?" This is where references come in handy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that for a large portion of the Super Mario RPG Peach is still a damsel in distress who requires Mario to rescue her before she becomes playable.  And I think she didn't include the RPG because it isn't part of the "core" Mario games (ie the platforming ones).  Although now that I think about it, she did mention the sports spinoffs so I guess I don't know what the hell I'm saying.  Maybe it'll show up in the counter examples.

 

I'll also agree that a lot of the information isn't new or revolutionary, but I don't think that makes it meaningless.  Sometimes repitition is the only way to get a point across.  The more voices there are talking about a topic, the more discussion there will be on it. 

 

As for the presentation, I'd concede that it's not super interesting but I actually kind of like that.  Too many videos try to present their information with flashy graphics or loud music or some other bs thing and I end up not getting the point or having to watch it again because of all the stuff between me and the message.  I appreciate videos that are both amusing and informative, but sometimes I like it when things are straighforward.

 

Also those are some big dangly hoop earings.  And damsel ball still cracks me up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tanukitsune, she mentions that Part 2 will be about modern examples and counter-examples, where I imagine she'd mention Samus Aran.

 

I don't remember exactly but she says none of this is inherently wrong or sexist, just that it's a trope that is reoccuring (in vast numbers), and the Double Dragon damsel definitely fits that trope whether or not you're meant to take it seriously. (Also, whatever the intention of Double Dragon Neon, this was the first time I've seen it and it kinda grossed me out..)

 

It would've been nice if she had mentioned Krystal and Peach getting a more active role in Star Fox Assault and Super Mario RPG, though, but I feel like there's a long way from not acknowledging that to "she doesn't know about games". How much game must one play to have a background in gaming? What is game?!

How is she still a "Damsel in Distress" when she suddenly has superpowers and tries to kill you? Sure, she's still evil and you'll want her to return to normal, but she still has bloody magical powers in this crazy universe. She has the power to turn the protagonist into a giant robot... 

 

I just looked at a wiki and guess what... she's a martial arts instructor and she's even playable in a few Double Dragon games... I'm not asking encyclopedic knowledge of every game ever, but could she at least GOOGLE a name of someone before calling her a damsel in distress? That's all.

 

The thing is, I don't feel like she's discussing the trope as listing examples... That someone else gave to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, I don't feel like she's discussing the trope as listing examples... That someone else gave to her.

 

Even if that were true, how would that make the points any less relevant? Crowd sourced truth is still truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if that were true, how would that make the points any less relevant? Crowd sourced truth is still truth.

That's the thing, it's not crowd sourced truth, it's crowd sourced information that hasn't been verified. If she had taken a minimal of time she would have received the information I got from Marion in just one click.

 

I just hope she looks less uncomfortable in the next video, and deathly curious to know if she'll mention Phantis as a counter example of damsels in distress, it probably was the first game were the girl rescues the man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is she still a "Damsel in Distress" when she suddenly has superpowers and tries to kill you? Sure, she's still evil and you'll want her to return to normal, but she still has bloody magical powers in this crazy universe. She has the power to turn the protagonist into a giant robot... 

 

I just looked at a wiki and guess what... she's a martial arts instructor and she's even playable in a few Double Dragon games... I'm not asking encyclopedic knowledge of every game ever, but could she at least GOOGLE a name of someone before calling her a damsel in distress? That's all.

 

The thing is, I don't feel like she's discussing the trope as listing examples... That someone else gave to her.

 

I feel like every single issue you point out is already addressed in her video and you're choosing to ignore that and focus on the ridiculous notion of how much gamer credentials she has.

 

Marian still constitutes as a Damsel in Distress trope because she is so for almost the entire game and the explicit goal of the game is to rescue her. That she isn't a Damsel in Distress to the very end, while nice, doesn't negate her role in the rest of the game (and this variation on the trope is mentioned by Sarkeesian regarding Zelda).  Also, her being turned into an evil killing machine that does Skullmageddon's bidding (she's apparently called "Skullmageddon's Girl!?" according to that wiki you refer to) sounds a whole lot like the "curse cast on damsel in distress" variation that Sarkeesian also mentions in regards to Zelda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And though I don't think she has to mention any of the 'counter examples' when she wants to talk about those tropes or in order to not sound like a 'nut' (you serious?), but she did say that she wants to talk about some different takes on the trope in the next episode.

It doesn't matter how right you are, if you only give attention to one side of the story people will see you as a nut and more or less start to ignore whatever message you wanted to convey.

I don't like one-sided research, if you pass off judgement you better give the reader the complete picture.

Anyway, plot wise the video games aren't much different from movies (and probably the average novel) when it comes to damsel in distress or other female related tropes. (that't not an excuse though).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems kinda surface level and pretty basic for something that had $160,000 behind it and took 9 months. It also doesn't really seem to say anything despite being 23 minutes of talking.

 

It's not bad per se but I don't see why it needed a kickstarter and all that jazz; it just seems like an average youtube speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is she still a "Damsel in Distress" when she suddenly has superpowers and tries to kill you?

Because, by Anita's definition, Damsel in Distress is something that happens to a character, not what a character is. It's a (temporary?) condition.

 

Even if that were true, how would that make the points any less relevant? Crowd sourced truth is still truth.

It's a valid point if you're measuring the video's net contribution to the discussion. She created a well-curated platform to present these examples, but her video, at this point, is just an aggregate. Which would be fine, but let's face it:

This seems kinda surface level and pretty basic for something that had $160,000 behind it and took 9 months. It also doesn't really seem to say anything despite being 23 minutes of talking.

It's kind of a double standard to expect FemFreq to have all the praise and attention that comes with all the money and hype, but not expect it to be criticized on the same grounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money issue is so strange to me, because it really seems like most of the people criticizing her for it are people who didn't actually donate anything. Her original asking price for this series was $6000, it only exploded to $160,000 because there was so much vitriol and attention directed at this Kickstarter. I donated money and really feel that it was well spent. It's very clear that the video has much higher production values than your standard YouTube fare. That extra money has had a real noticable impact, especially if you compare this video with her earlier stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like every single issue you point out is already addressed in her video and you're choosing to ignore that and focus on the ridiculous notion of how much gamer credentials she has.

 

Marian still constitutes as a Damsel in Distress trope because she is so for almost the entire game and the explicit goal of the game is to rescue her. That she isn't a Damsel in Distress to the very end, while nice, doesn't negate her role in the rest of the game (and this variation on the trope is mentioned by Sarkeesian regarding Zelda).  Also, her being turned into an evil killing machine that does Skullmageddon's bidding (she's apparently called "Skullmageddon's Girl!?" according to that wiki you refer to) sounds a whole lot like the "curse cast on damsel in distress" variation that Sarkeesian also mentions in regards to Zelda.

 

 

Because, by Anita's definition, Damsel in Distress is something that happens to a character, not what a character is. It's a (temporary?) condition.

Hum, is it me or do these definitions seems to contradict each other? The video was barely interesting enough to watch once, let alone twice. 

 

I remember when Wonder Woman was turned into a pig by Circe and Batman's goal was to cure and rescue her, I guess she's a damsel in distress too.

 

I'm pretty sure she still counted Zelda as a Damsel in Distress when she spent most of the game as Shiek. 

 

Argh, I no longer know if  I wasn't paying attention or if she was inconsistent with her definitions of the damsel in distress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are they contradicting? They are either a Damsel in Distress for the entire or part of a game.

 

In regards to Wonder Woman, then yes, she fits the bill in that specific circumstance, I guess..

 

And yes, she still counted Zelda in Ocarina of Time, because eventually (and as soon as she actually appears in her Zelda form) she is captured and the player needs to rescue her. She specifically mentions that Zelda's Shiek form was a very strong female character, capable and helping the player along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure she still counted Zelda as a Damsel in Distress when she spent most of the game as Shiek. 

 If I remember correctly, she said Zelda becomes the Damsel in Distress when she transforms into her stereotypical female form (from Shiek/Tetra to the Princess) and is captured.  Up until that point, she isn't the Damsel in Distress.  Not all women are damsels, but (by defintion) all damsels are women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The money issue is so strange to me, because it really seems like most of the people criticizing her for it are people who didn't actually donate anything. Her original asking price for this series was $6000, it only exploded to $160,000 because there was so much vitriol and attention directed at this Kickstarter. I donated money and really feel that it was well spent. It's very clear that the video has much higher production values than your standard YouTube fare. That extra money has had a real noticable impact, especially if you compare this video with her earlier stuff.

 

I suppose for some (not necessarily me) it raises some ethical issues. If you run a Kickstarter campaign and are given a huge amount of money through the sheer goodwill of people wanting to support your project, is it right to essentially just take that extra money for yourself? I've only watched a few minutes of this new video but there's no way that's remotely $160,000 worth of budget, nor does such a concept need it. In fact anyone who spends that much on a YouTube video project deserves a slap.

So the question is: what should a project owner do with that extra money? Be transparent and show exactly how it'll be used for this and/or future projects? Based on the amount she earnt she could create over 25 video series. Return it to the people, or donate it to charity? What's the right thing to do? This isn't meant to be 'take it and enjoy it, you deserve it' money. It's meant to be a direct contribution towards the production of something.

 

This isn't specific to this Feminist Frequency project, of course. I'm just thinking about how Kickstarter funds are used in general. With something like Double Fine Adventure it's clear where and how extra funds are being used to genuinely enhance the end product, but I see little evidence of that here and can easily imagine how that'd irritate people, especially if they contributed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but where's the proof that she kept the extra money? The intention is to make a series of videos, so it makes sense that she wouldn't blow the whole amount on the first one.

People donated well beyond this Kickstarters budget because they either liked what it was trying to do or they wanted to show support to someone who was being unfairly maligned by a minority of people. Why does it matter that she got so much money? No one seemed to care when Idle Thumbs exceeded their asked for amount, because people understood that it is expensive to record/host a weekly podcast and also have separate full time jobs. Why isn't the same understanding being directed towards the FemFeq Kickstarter?

Note: I don't want to turn this into a whole Idle Thumbs vs. FemFeq Kickstarter argument, because that's not fair to the Thumbs guys. It's just a really easy counter-example for the larger point of many, many Kickstarters exceed their budget and essentially provide the same project they were originally planning on, with a few modifications, and it doesn't seem to bother anyone who donated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really you should only be upset if you:

1. donated money, and

2. felt like you aren't getting the value of what you donated. 

 

I donated 5 bucks. I feel like I am getting at least 5 bucks worth of video. Why would I complain? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that I watched like four minutes of this video and learned that Miyamoto is evil, which Mario games should I burn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't fund the Kickstarter so I am rather ignorant of the details.  How many videos was it supposed to fund?  I would imagine that if her original goal was to only do a few and she got 25x her asking amount, then she would spend the surplus on making more rather than making the few just look better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but where's the proof that she kept the extra money? The intention is to make a series of videos, so it makes sense that she wouldn't blow the whole amount on the first one.

People donated well beyond this Kickstarters budget because they either liked what it was trying to do or they wanted to show support to someone who was being unfairly maligned by a minority of people. Why does it matter that she got so much money? No one seemed to care when Idle Thumbs exceeded their asked for amount, because people understood that it is expensive to record/host a weekly podcast and also have separate full time jobs. Why isn't the same understanding being directed towards the FemFeq Kickstarter?

Note: I don't want to turn this into a whole Idle Thumbs vs. FemFeq Kickstarter argument, because that's not fair to the Thumbs guys. It's just a really easy counter-example for the larger point of many, many Kickstarters exceed their budget and essentially provide the same project they were originally planning on, with a few modifications, and it doesn't seem to bother anyone who donated.

 

Where's the proof that she didn't?

 

I'm only playing devil's advocate here because I don't actually care very much what she does with the money, but I do think that as a general rule those who enjoy funds well beyond their expectations should have at least an ethical obligation to be open about how all that money is spent. Kickstarter is becoming a pretty big part of the developmentosphere so it's interesting to think about.

 

When the Double Fine Adventure Kickstarter exceeded its requirements I was happy because they almost immediately showed how that extra money would be used, and it was easy to see where it'd be going — on making a better game that's more likely to succeed, thus making everyone's contributions even more worth it. I'd have been pretty disappointed if they got all that extra money and nothing was said about where the excess would be going, swallowed into Double Fine's general funds (although that's still not a particularly bad thing, but that's only because it's Double Fine ;)).

 

With something like this video project, clearly you don't need that much money. She's got at least 10 times more than what's necessary for even the most lavish of productions, which leaves a big question mark in the air regarding what she's doing with the rest of it. Is it going to be invested into future projects? Or is she just going to take the other $130,000 or so and have a great time with it? Does this bother anyone? Well, yes. But should it?

 

It seems obvious that at least some supporters are disappointed with the end result considering the spending power she had to ensure it was absolutely great. As a non-contributing viewer I was pretty bored within minutes and couldn't really be bothered to continue, and I've heard similar opinions quite widely already. So in terms of interesting outsiders in this subject and attracting support — rather than just preaching to the contributing choir — it's not doing so well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.