youmeyou

Feminist Frequency

Recommended Posts

Ugh, what a terrible buzzword. It's up there with patriarchy and oppression. They all have too much baggage to bring into a neutral discussion. Remember when people were trying to redefine racism to only mean racism against minorities? Lame aside, I just wanted to spit out the bad taste in my mouth. I hate when buzzwords are invented to justify ad hominem rebuttals.

Did Argobot actually say anything inaccurate? I don't think she did, but if you do, maybe you could respond directly to that instead of just "ugh, buzzwords, baggage."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked the segments about Starfox Adventure's change of direction and Zelda's inability to be written out of her cliché in Ocarina and Wind Waker: they are peculiar, symptomatic and yet non trivial examples that could open enlightening discussions.

The sad part is that they don't, and that's my main issue about this episode: it isn't thought provoking and it doesn't explore the topic from enough angles (writing, character design, game design) to be truly a work of analysis.

Maybe it's the point of the series - and re-reading the Kickstarter it seems to be - but limiting this to an inventory of examples is a bit disappointing and not very enriching.

 

This is how I tend to feel about what I watched it. I don't particularly find Anita engaging, fine enough, but I guess I do want to hear videos on the portrayal of women in games. The problem is she doesn't really say much else outside of rattling off information that leads to the trope, giving a few sarcastic or annoyed comments, and then moving on to the next example. At the very least, it feels a lot less negative and composed than the Feminist Frequency videos I had watched during the whole Kickstarter debacle, but I don't feel like I'm listening to someone exploring a topic with multiple viewpoints allowed and it all tends to just be her getting down on one thing after another.

 

If she is truly going to find good examples in the next video, to me that is a really bad idea, because I feel this would be more successful if she found a female portrayal that is the antidote for the specific negative trope she has in mind. As it stands, I just feel like I'm being griped at.

 

And can she PLEASE stop showing this one photo of her playing video games as a child over and over?! I get it, she has credentials because of that photo. It even appeared and was discussed in her TED Talk. If I really want to be impressed by her game playing credentials, then I'll be impressed by what games she picks as her good and bad examples. So far it's been easy targets, Bayonetta and Nintendo princesses. The Zelda topic is interesting, but what if she started exploring the multitude of adventure games with female lead characters? If she mentions Zanthia at all, I'll be happy, as she's a lead that has sexism partied around her for some of the cheap humor in the game, but I also found her to be an endearing and strong character. Maybe she could tackle Meryl from Metal Gear? I don't know, something else besides the 101 stuff.

 

Pointing out sleaze like Double Dragon's panty shot doesn't mean much, and in Wayforward's defense, they don't have the panty shot, and I'm pretty sure they were making fun of the original intro, not reveling in it like it's some kind of genius. Anita has spent time before in one of her videos not on games about how sexism getting displayed in an ironic or schlocky manner in a form of media allows the true sexist nature of the creators off the hook since they are winking at you. I just don't feel like that's universally true or that things have to be so squeaky clean in every case, and that focusing in on it is a waste of time. I would enjoy more focus on female characters that are getting there but have some kind of shortcoming in the way they are portrayed and then analyzing which angles the writer/designer/artist could have taken to make a more believable and agreeable female character. Zelda/Shiek and Tetra is a nice start, but not much was said, most likely because Nintendo's writing and portrayal of most of their characters tends to be pretty mute and weak all around. I mean the stories in Nintendo games are built upon tropes almost exclusively.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far it's been easy targets, Bayonetta and Nintendo princesses. The Zelda topic is interesting, but what if she started exploring the multitude of adventure games with female lead characters? If she mentions Zanthia at all, I'll be happy, as she's a lead that has sexism partied around her for some of the cheap humor in the game, but I also found her to be an endearing and strong character. Maybe she could tackle Meryl from Metal Gear? I don't know, something else besides the 101 stuff.

I agree. I didn't really feel it was fair to criticize the video for something as superficial as this, but I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who contributed to the Kickstarter, I expect the videos to do what was described on the Kickstarter page, not celebrate how video games are actually fine because this one time a company made a game that wasn't obviously sexist. Finding examples of games with OK female characters in order to make gamers feel less threatened is not what was promised. It's also not needed as the industry and gamers are very adept at patting each other on the back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She spent what I think is an appropriate amount of time talking about some of the most successful and widely-known games of all time--games that even people who don't play video games know. Those are games that are absolutely medium-defining. It makes perfect sense to me that especially in the first video they would be the focus. But in terms of communicating breadth beyond that point, I think the montage she put together succeeded extremely well.

The whole point of this thing is "tropes." She picked a trope to start with, and used a massive number of examples to demonstrate it. It's absurdly unfair to act as if she should have thought of every single possible example and angle conceivable in a single video. I really feel like people are holding this video to a ridiculously specific standard that is quite unusual and intimidating. Set aside the amount of money she earned, and ask yourself if you get this grumbly and obsessive about all the things that could have theoretically been said in the rest of the internet videos you watch? This is a series, and there's only been one episode released so far.

I'm really glad Idle Thumbs episodes don't get put under this level of scrutiny, even though we similarly made much more money on Kickstarter than we expected to. I realize there's a difference in that we just pitch our podcast as informal conversation, but I still feel people are subjecting Sarkeesian's thing to a weirdly heightened level of judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on the video is that it was basically exactly what you'd expect from the first episode of a ongoing series, giving a broad introduction to the subject not a in-depth razor sharp critical analysis.

It's not important to me that this wouldn't stand up as academically rigorous, it feels far more like a attempt to reach out and find a constructive middle ground where the subject can be talked about sensibly without people climbing up on soapboxes on either side. One of the big 'tropes/misunderstanding' about feminism in general that I see among people I know is that if you think feminism is good you must think men/males are bad, and FF does a really good job of trying to tell a story where the audience can empathise with how the characters are treated. By tanking its time and just talking about a couple of games it can give us some understanding of the personality of those characters, so they aren't just 'objects' to be fought over in the in the debate(as they were objects to be fought over in the games).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finding examples of games with OK female characters in order to make gamers feel less threatened is not what was promised. It's also not needed as the industry and gamers are very adept at patting each other on the back.

Uh, what kind of bass-ackwards interpretation are you responding to. You offer counterexamples to show people, "hey, this is how to do it right", not to say, "hey, the industry's okay, don't worry about it". To never acknowledge the people doing it right is a foolish choice.

 

Also I don't like your implication that a thorough analysis of the state of the industry (no matter how narrow the context) shouldn't include aspects from every side of the argument. That's not how critical analysis works...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Argobot actually say anything inaccurate? I don't think she did, but if you do, maybe you could respond directly to that instead of just "ugh, buzzwords, baggage."

I think(?) I was in basic agreement, if only in the sentiment that its a terrible word to bring into this (or any) discussion. So yeah, basically I said "ugh, buzzwords, baggage." Don't read too much into it; I (ambiguously) called it an aside in the post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally got around to seeing the video, and it's frustrating to see that one of the first critiques was that she gets too emotional. The reason why she is so even-toned for most of the video is exactly because women are held to different standards than men: criticized when they become too emotional, even "hysterical". That's also why you so very rarely see Obama get angry, because he's trying to avoid the Angry Black Man trap. Because she can't get too emotional, that limits the number of ways she can be engaging!

 

Still, though, I think she does an excellent job considering the circumstances. Simply pulling together all the source media—even knowing how to pull them—took a lot of work. Video production gets very time-consuming very quickly, even with help. As others have said, talking about the most obvious and popular examples is a good way in. It's hard to expect deep analysis out of something that's primarily outreach-oriented, and she did a great job of making the trope stand out when for most of us it's become background noise at this point. These kinds of things are hard to notice when our antennae are dulled by the more egregious examples.

 

If anyone's interested in the pre-video game examples of the trope in action, a great place to start would be by looking at captivity narratives, where a woman is stolen by savages and has to be rescued by a man. It was originally used for women abducted by Native Americans, but was later resurrected for mythical bands of freed slaves rampaging the South. Susan Faludi does a fantastic job of describing this all in her book The Terror Dream, which lays out the history and applies it to post-9/11 media in stunning, damning detail.

 

(If you do read it, though, read Part 2 first, then circle back to Part 1. I have no idea why she placed the history stuff after the post-9/11 media analysis, since it makes so much more sense the other way. Probably was an editor/publisher decision to emphasize the current-events angle and not start out with a bunch of history.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I didn't realize that the "Part 1" of the title meant there would be another episode on this topic; I thought it meant this was the first part of the whole series.

So, Chris has a point: it's probably too early to pass judgement.

 

And maybe I have crazy standards but if so they are not at all  related to the amount money she got: she has a Master degree in Social Science, she goes into French ethymology and she seemed to have dedicated her last few years to delving into the Women vs Trope topic; so I was expecting the strictness in research and level of insight that Janet Murray or Brenda Laurel provided in their academical works; even their earliest ones.

In hindsight, that might be too much.

 

Still, I stand by my earlier appreciation of the video: it's a good effort, not just in the direction that I would find most valuable - so it's probably more my problem than hers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing people repeatedly misinterpret my complaint about suddenly saying "regressive crap" as an attack on emotion. Either I poorly phrased it or you're putting words in my mouth. Either way, my critique was of her noncommitted tone. From the start, she establishes an academic and objective tone, and isn't able to follow through. This isn't a controversial criticism, it's style 101. Honestly, I wish she was willing to just use an emotional tone. Maybe it would have been passionate and engaging. Instead it felt uncontrolled.

It's absurdly unfair to act as if she should have thought of every single possible example and angle conceivable in a single video.

Is it unfair to imagine she could have thought of a better one?

I really feel like people are holding this video to a ridiculously specific standard that is quite unusual and intimidating.

What's unusual? It's political, there's been a lot of hype built up. If you can't anticipate scrutiny coming with self promotional hype and calling your critics evil, maybe you have poorly calibrated expectations.

Speaking of poorly calibrated expectations, here's more or less what I expected the video to be: I figured it'd be a reboot of sorts, to bring in a larger audience and work on its own. Check. I expected it to provide some sort of background and research into the subject she wanted to cover. Also check. I expected it to establish a framework with which to think about the subject. No dice. Besides telling me what a damsel in distress is, and how to say it in French, there weren't any concepts introduced that would have empowered me to see the world in a new light. She did arm lots of people with the word "pernicious" which is fun to say and sounds nasty. Finally, I expected the video to be high quality and well produced. Well, I don't think so, but some people think it was so maybe that gets a half check which really is just a v or a slash depending on how long you make the tail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idle Thumbs made 4x it's original asked for Kickstarter goal, yet we had no stretch goals, and we missed (and continue to miss) all our reward delivery dates. The number of complaints about our Kickstarter campaign, with its thousand+ backers and tens of thousands of listeners, can be counted on probably two or three hands.

All things the same, if we were women and our podcast was focused on feminist issues, we would need to buy out an umbrella factory to shield us from the shitstorm that would have been sent our way.

So basically, fuck everything.

FemFreq put out a pilot episode -- a first stab --and it didn't blow minds but it did its job simply. If its not for you, then it's not. There are a lot of things in the world that aren't for everyone.

I only got half way through this thread before being tired out by the hating (though on average I think this thread beats a lot of what is out there online). In the video (only the first of dozens, right!?) she pointed out more than enough examples to show that these tropes undoubtedly exist in video games. Whether one particular game or another is an exception, or has an exception, is totally irrelevant. It doesn't invalidate anything she says, it doesn't make you smarter than her for noticing it. Exceptions exist. If anything, doesn't combatting the video's examples (most of which are from the biggest and longest running franchises in gaming) with a deep-dived smattering of obscure, hand-picked counter-examples just prove the rule?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm seeing people repeatedly misinterpret my complaint about suddenly saying "regressive crap" as an attack on emotion. Either I poorly phrased it or you're putting words in my mouth. Either way, my critique was of her noncommitted tone. From the start, she establishes an academic and objective tone, and isn't able to follow through. This isn't a controversial criticism, it's style 101. Honestly, I wish she was willing to just use an emotional tone. Maybe it would have been passionate and engaging. Instead it felt uncontrolled.

Is it unfair to imagine she could have thought of a better one?

What's unusual? It's political, there's been a lot of hype built up. If you can't anticipate scrutiny coming with self promotional hype and calling your critics evil, maybe you have poorly calibrated expectations.

Speaking of poorly calibrated expectations, here's more or less what I expected the video to be: I figured it'd be a reboot of sorts, to bring in a larger audience and work on its own. Check. I expected it to provide some sort of background and research into the subject she wanted to cover. Also check. I expected it to establish a framework with which to think about the subject. No dice. Besides telling me what a damsel in distress is, and how to say it in French, there weren't any concepts introduced that would have empowered me to see the world in a new light. She did arm lots of people with the word "pernicious" which is fun to say and sounds nasty. Finally, I expected the video to be high quality and well produced. Well, I don't think so, but some people think it was so maybe that gets a half check which really is just a v or a slash depending on how long you make the tail.

 

What is unusual -- and not a little troubling -- is that thousands of youtube videos get released every single day. Many of them feature gaming. Many of them are posted on this forum. And yet the only one that gets pages of comments in a 24 hours period is this one. So the video didn't "empower you to see the world in a new light"; that's a completely absurd thing to expect of any youtube video on any topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is unusual -- and not a little troubling -- is that thousands of youtube videos get released every single day. Many of them feature gaming. Many of them are posted on this forum. And yet the only one that gets pages of comments in a 24 hours period is this one. So the video didn't "empower you to see the world in a new light"; that's a completely absurd thing to expect of any youtube video on any topic.

Her original Tropes vs. Women series sort of did. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only got half way through this thread before being tired out by the hating (though on average I think this thread beats a lot of what is out there online). In the video (only the first of dozens, right!?) she pointed out more than enough examples to show that these tropes undoubtedly exist in video games. Whether one particular game or another is an exception, or has an exception, is totally irrelevant. It doesn't invalidate anything she says, it doesn't make you smarter than her for noticing it. Exceptions exist. If anything, doesn't combatting the video's examples (most of which are from the biggest and longest running franchises in gaming) with a deep-dived smattering of obscure, hand-picked counter-examples just prove the rule?

Man, did I miss a couple pages of the thread? I thought I'd been following along pretty steadily, but I honestly don't remember anyone providing a counter-example to prove that it's not a problem after all.

 

I feel like... I don't even know what's real anymore. This thread is dumb. ):

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't know what people are talking about when they say that "critical analysis" should engage multiple viewpoints. Film criticism doesn't work that way. Literature analysis doesn't work that way. They all look at a work or a body of works through a carefully considered and constrained lens, doing so exhaustively if at all possible. A critical analysis of light as illumination and obfuscation in Strangers on a Train isn't obligated to engage competing analyses like reader response or new historicism on the same movie. Heck, it's not even obligated to engage counterexamples if they don't pertain directly to the critic's thesis.

 

It just looks to me like "not academic enough" is an umbrella for a lot of little nitpicks with Saarkeesian's tone and goals, none of which are very substantive on their own. Like Chris and Jake said, it does what it needs to do. It's okay if that didn't work for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finding examples of games with OK female characters in order to make gamers feel less threatened is not what was promised. It's also not needed as the industry and gamers are very adept at patting each other on the back.

 

Less threatened? Alright.

 

It's super easy to just sit around and rattle off a list of video games doing it wrong, because nearly all of them are. That's just boring. I want more time spent on what the Zelda topic touched upon but with other characters, not pointing out that things like Double Dragon showed panties long ago or that Mario 2 doesn't count as an example of Peach not as a damsel because it was a reskin. I'm personally also not wanting a video of exceptions, that's just as boring. Again, the conflict of a female character being strong on her own but at the same time being dragged down by a trope because of lazy writing or not enough thought it a lot more interesting of a discussion, whatever you guys define is the right or wrong way to do an analyses.

 

Sheesh guys, yeah it's the first episode, but we are on a message board talking, thoughts are bound to be written down. Probably these videos are not for me then but I'm going to watch the next few either way.

 

Also on a side note, the princess does rescue you one time in Prince of Persia when she sends out her pet mouse to jump on a switch for you. On that note, Farah? Can she talk about Farah at some point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jake and Chris, I think you guys are really selling yourselves short comparing Idle Thumbs and its Kickstarter to Anita Sarkeesian. I mean does this even need saying? You make a fun, entertaining podcast where you talk about games with knowledge and passion, it's a great thing to listen to every week. Being slow with the reward tiers wasn't really a big deal since most people were just paying for having the cast back on the air and the stuff was just bonuses. You also did things like the progresscasts which were great.

Anita spent like eight months to make a twenty-minute video where she basically reads a tv tropes article to camera in a dull monotone delivery with no enthusiasm or anything interesting to grab the viewer and put her points across in an engaging manner. Now yeah this is just one episode of the series and maybe it will get better, but it doesn't seem great so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She spent what I think is an appropriate amount of time talking about some of the most successful and widely-known games of all time--games that even people who don't play video games know. Those are games that are absolutely medium-defining. It makes perfect sense to me that especially in the first video they would be the focus. But in terms of communicating breadth beyond that point, I think the montage she put together succeeded extremely well.

The whole point of this thing is "tropes." She picked a trope to start with, and used a massive number of examples to demonstrate it. It's absurdly unfair to act as if she should have thought of every single possible example and angle conceivable in a single video. I really feel like people are holding this video to a ridiculously specific standard that is quite unusual and intimidating. Set aside the amount of money she earned, and ask yourself if you get this grumbly and obsessive about all the things that could have theoretically been said in the rest of the internet videos you watch? This is a series, and there's only been one episode released so far.

I'm really glad Idle Thumbs episodes don't get put under this level of scrutiny, even though we similarly made much more money on Kickstarter than we expected to. I realize there's a difference in that we just pitch our podcast as informal conversation, but I still feel people are subjecting Sarkeesian's thing to a weirdly heightened level of judgment.

 

Well said. I feel like I hear things I disagree with on this podcast, and many others, but instead of trying to say that the Idle Thumbs Podcast project is bullshit because I didn't find a particular point-of-view correct or particularly interesting - I engage in a conversation, and it is part of what makes Idle Thumbs great. But what I hear from so many detractors of this video project is this effort to shut down any sort of attempt at further engaging in dialogue. It is incredibly frustrating. It is even more embarrassing because so many of the critiques I am seeing leveled at this video are directly addressed in the video, so it makes it hard to believe that a lot of these criticisms are raised in good faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is even more embarrassing because so many of the critiques I am seeing leveled at this video are directly addressed in the video

 

I might be a silly person, but I don't remember much being addressed in the video at all beyond, "This trope exists and here are examples."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A critical analysis of light as illumination and obfuscation in Strangers on a Train isn't obligated to engage competing analyses like reader response or new historicism on the same movie.

Hey, that's a completely logical analog to discussing female tropes in video games and why they're bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, that's a completely logical analog to discussing female tropes in video games and why they're bad.

 

That's nice, Twig. By the way, I'm waiting to hear what you and Luftmensch and everybody else saying, "It should be different, more _____," actually think this Youtube series should resemble, beyond just "not what it is".

 

I think it's perfectly logical to equate the feminist analysis of certain tropes in video games with the critical analysis of certain motifs in cinema, but that's just me. My standards don't seem to be as high as some of the people giving such constructive comments here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's nice, Twig. By the way, I'm waiting to hear what you and Luftmensch and everybody else saying, "It should be different, more _____," actually think this Youtube series should resemble, beyond just "not what it is".*

Selfish time: does the "everybody else" includes me or can I just consider that I carried my point across successfully?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selfish time: does the "everybody else" includes me or can I just consider that I carried my point across successfully?

 

Hah, no. I got your criticisms just fine. I think you wanted a more granular analysis of the trope as it appears in a select few games, which I wouldn't mind seeing as well, but you're right to say that Saarkeesian's agenda seems to be something more general and basic, so it's probably just not going to work for you. That's perfectly valid in my eyes, which are the only ones that matter, of course.

 

I'm more trying to call out the people who each list a dozen subjective things that seemed off to them (boring, unprofessional, emotional, monotone, unacademic, superficial, perfunctory, pedantic) and then imply that this is the fault of Saarkeesian's style or format, full stop. It's a weak critique that just presents a laundry list of failings without any idea of how to build on strengths to compensate for them. With every article I've ever submitted, the nightmare response from the editor is a "revise and resubmit" with no substantive content. Usually, they just don't agree with my argument or aren't interested in my topic, but feel they can't say as much, so they just write a brief sentence about how it's "not sufficiently original" or "methodologically flawed" and tell me to get back to them when I've fixed that. Thanks?

 

I'm trying not to view some of the comments here in that light. It's okay not to like Saarkeesian or her videos, but the conclusion to make is that you didn't like her videos, not that she made a bad video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's nice, Twig. By the way, I'm waiting to hear what you and Luftmensch and everybody else saying, "It should be different, more _____," actually think this Youtube series should resemble, beyond just "not what it is".

 

I think it's perfectly logical to equate the feminist analysis of certain tropes in video games with the critical analysis of certain motifs in cinema, but that's just me. My standards don't seem to be as high as some of the people giving such constructive comments here.

 

It's too soon to say what I think about her stance on the problems she presents, but I was somewhat disappointed with her first presentation. gregbrown noted earlier that she was keeping a very level tone to avoid the sexist stereotype of a "hysterical" woman in a similar fashion that Obama has to protect himself from the "Angry Black Man" stereotype. I think that comparison is quite apt. By simply being a woman discussing a feminist topic, Sarkeesian must be that much more perfect than any of her male peers to be effective.

 

Obama is an excellent example of someone who's brilliantly managed immense volumes of prejudiced criticism while still being a very effective speaker. He's an eloquent, expressive speaker, who doesn't give his opponents material to support their rhetoric and prejudice. I feel like Sarkeesian has to meet a similar standard to have her voice heard and I don't think she's reaching such an incredible level of eloquence, so it makes me somewhat sad and disappointed that her points won't have as much impact as they should.

 

It's entirely unfair, but this is the situation she finds herself in. I wish Sarkeesian was that much more perfect, because the problems she elucidates are real and every flaw she reveals, no matter how trivial, will be used as munition to distract and discredit her arguments.

 

I don't really have a problem with the content of her video, but it's not really my cup of tea. My personal preference is for fast dense discussions driving at a singular point like the better of the TED talks. For the kind of material she was presenting in the video, I much prefer written articles since I can digest the material at my own pace rather than have the pacing moderated by the speaker.

Share this post


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