youmeyou

Feminist Frequency

Recommended Posts

I hope people are at least aware that it is problematic and emblematic that people are apply this level of scrutiny and criticism to 1 second, two words, of expressed emotion. it's really something else.

FFS, I'm getting so sick of deliberately belligerent comments like this. What has happened to this forum? Once upon a time you could express your opinion on something and get reasonable feedback. Instead you post a perfectly well reasoned observation, and all you get is people going out of their way to tell you you're wrong, or that you're wrong to even bring it up.

Any counter points are completely ignored, and the same empty comments get repeated, over and over.

RANT:

It's blatantly fricking obvious that the video was meant as a serious attempt at tackling a serious issue. Indeed, if proof is needed (and really, it shouldn't be) it was stated as much on their Kickstarter -- where it was revealed, amongst other things, that her videos have been integrated into University Curriculums, even including Law Schools. I worry that using subjective language found in rants [like this one] can only undermine those attempts at being taken seriously.

It's not even really a question of taste. It's unprofessional and unacademic.

The only thing up for debate us how negatively it affected the message of the video, but EVERYONE AGREES: It doesn't, really. Thankfully.

But the fact that it slipped through the editorial net, in an otherwise serious and objective piece, is worrisome to me. Why? Because I don't want it to undermine what I consider to be a potentially very important series.

Don't tell this isn't worth bringing up. Don't tell me I'm wrong to be concerned (unless you can actually back up what you're saying).

It's not a big issue, but I'm not wrong for raising it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no "professional" standard for a youtube video, and it's not a dissertation so I'm not sure why it should matter whether or not it's "unacademic". And there's nothing "unprofessional" or "unacademic" about expressing a subjective opinion about something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cant tell what this post means. If you think that's what I was trying to argue for -- doing whatever you want with the money -- I don't think you read what I said at all. I specifically said "people got what they paid for."

 

Sorry man, I totally agree, I was just making a joke about the absurdity of somebody going in an entirely different direction than the pitch. (Such, say donating the money, which plenty of people said.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, TP liked the video. We tend to disagree, so I may have to examine where I went wrong.

Once my internet springs back to life, I'm going to reread the thread and make a proper contribution (just in time to reawaken all this fighting once it has died down). Luftdude, I swear I'm not just hiding under a rock because I don't want to answer your post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, I'm getting so sick of deliberately belligerent comments like this. What has happened to this forum? Once upon a time you could express your opinion on something and get reasonable feedback. Instead you post a perfectly well reasoned observation, and all you get is people going out of their way to tell you you're wrong, or that you're wrong to even bring it up.

 

Sorry man, I don't feel that I'm being belligerent  by suggesting people try to consider the nature and context of their criticisms in a field where women's voices are very often diminished. I mean, jeez, look at response she received when she expressed herself if you want to talk about belligerence.

 

I feel she laid out a clear and simple argument  providing hundreds of examples, over generations, of this problem. I'd again ask you to consider the type, nature, and tone of the response. When men say "she doesn't sound professional, she didn't entertain me" all that. It exists in a context. (I'm not just referring specifically or soley to your words, but maybe the larger group in which your words might be landing.) no beef man. 1 luv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FFS, I'm getting so sick of deliberately belligerent comments like this. What has happened to this forum? Once upon a time you could express your opinion on something and get reasonable feedback. Instead you post a perfectly well reasoned observation, and all you get is people going out of their way to tell you you're wrong, or that you're wrong to even bring it up.

[...]

Don't tell this isn't worth bringing up. Don't tell me I'm wrong to be concerned (unless you can actually back up what you're saying).

It's not a big issue, but I'm not wrong for raising it.

Mh, you raised this issue in a threat that was already a burning mess of anger and cantankerousness, you raised it at page nine and it was already acknowledged and discussed at page one (as well as other pages), you raised the issue while the threat was rather talking about the strange and suspicious level of hyper-scrutiny this particular video gets treated with and the issue was part of this nit-picky, hyper-sensitive, sometimes schizophrenic scrutiny for the whole run of the thread. I don't mean to throw you in with this mess, really, maybe just explain why people reacted the way they reacted.

 

I agree, it is worth talking about, but (as I said like twelve pages earlier) I didn't have a problem with it, for me it worked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever happened to critical thinking...? If you find fault with something then the entire thing is ruined? Is that the rule now?

Were you... were you talking to me? I'm legitimately confused. My post was sandwiched between two of yours, so I feel it's safe to assume you were talking to me, and yet what does that have to do with anything I said what

 

what

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to neatly excise patriarchy as a term because it's a "buzzword" with "baggage", then talk about "rhetorical disenfranchisement" is a complete rhetorical pile of shit, Luft. Regarding MRAs: Get to fuck, fellow guy. We are not systemically oppressed on the basis of our guy-ness.

 

Edit: Chris is correct, the level of scrutiny Sarkeesian's work is being subjected to is outrageously out of proportion. People seem highly motivated to dismiss her entire project on the basis of little more than nitpicking.

 

(TP: not a reference to you because I realise you're not trying to dismiss it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris is correct, the level of scrutiny Sarkeesian's work is being subjected to is outrageously out of proportion. People seem highly motivated to dismiss her entire project on the basis of little more than nitpicking.

I can only speak with confidence about my own experience in this thread, but basically, I said it was boring, and probably not for me, and would have left it there if people complaining at my and others' similar comments hadn't forced me to further explain my position.

 

In other words, there might not necessarily be as much scrutiny if people didn't keep ASKING for it? But, well, I can't really say that. I can only speak for myself.

 

If it's any consolation, people getting this dumb shit out of their system now will probably mean it won't happen for every future video. U:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About 5 years ago, when this thread was on its 20th page, I think I mentioned that if you disliked this video for whatever reason that doesn't mean that I will then see you as an awful, sexist person.

 

Maybe that sentiment got lost along the way, but I think it warrants repeating. If Twig or anyone else thinks that I was upset that they did not 100% absolutely love this video, I sincerely apologize, because that was not my intention. I did get upset when some posters on this thread--who ostensibly claimed to support what this video was trying to do--started to nitpick it to a staggering degree. There were some people who were probably trying to offer constructive criticism, but their voices kind of got lost along the way, which is a shame, because I would have loved to have had a an actual discussion about this video.

 

If you legitimately found this video boring, but are actually interested in the issues it brings up (in this case, sexism in video games), then there are a lot of other websites with written content you can seek out instead. I'd recommend starting with http://borderhouseblog.com/ (it deals solely with feminist or queer issues in gaming, and after Chris mentioned her and her game on a recent podcast, I noticed that Mattie Brice is one of the more frequent writers.)

 

Now that Sarkeesian has jumped that first video hump, the videos will hopefully start going up in quality, so even if you weren't absolutely blown away by this one, I hope you keep an open mind and at least try and watch later videos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to neatly excise patriarchy as a term because it's a "buzzword" with "baggage", then talk about "rhetorical disenfranchisement" is a complete rhetorical pile of shit

a.) wrong, because dismissing buzzwords for being loaded and incapable of allowing neutral discussion is not the same thing as dismissing an entire social activist stance off-hand to insult people I don't like. That's on the same level as calling Al Qaeda members Muslim Camelfuckers (but it's different, I hear you retort)

b.) good, you're at least thinking about it, even if you're still making up reasons to justify your visceral reaction. You're literally saying that caring about and addressing anything that isn't being "systematically oppressed" (because apparently we live in a society with so few problems that we have to put bad pay and shitty media representation on the same level as being shipped to the gulag) is bullshit.

Anyhow, I'll check out the link Argo, sounds worth reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what "literally" means.

 

In any event, you can care about whatever you want. But MRA posits a systemic solution to a systemic problem that doesn't exist: men are not oppressed as a result of their masculinity, any more than white people in America are oppressed as a result of their whiteness. And that is why people object to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

which is a shame, because I would have loved to have had a an actual discussion about this video.

Which I am very much still in for.

So, I'm going to come out with this right away: I don't have an easy time getting what the underlying problem really is (representation of women in video games) on more than a superficial (the "a metal bra is all the armor I need" eyeroller) level, so I figured this video series is partially for people like me who could use some education on the topic.

I think the entry video actually delivered, at least for me personally, on explaining what is so questionable about the Damsel in Distress, namely that it reduces a female character to the prize that keeps bringing the story of the protagonist along. See, that actually made sense, message received.

However, reading through this thread, looking back on the video, all that good internal post analysis, what stuck with me the most is, roughly:

"Representation of women in video games is off and problematic, here is a trope that demonstrates this. Let's look at the Mario games for example."

Really?

Now, as I said, I am most likely very uneducated on the topic, but I feel like this is an actual problem with the video. I can accept that at this point the conception and existance of the video series is important, if just to take a good look at the state of characterization in the medium. I feel like it's a weird subject, since video games are to a large degree power fantasies and objectified characters play into that so easily, which doesn't just hit women to be honest. So I am basically in a rather receptive position, where I am accepting that there's probably a problem and am just waiting to get hit with some education, so I can get a clearer picture on the thematic. And what I get is having pointed out that the portrayal of female characters is problematic in two series, in which the portrayal of everything is problematic - and as far as I can tell completely meant to be that way in an overstereotypical fairy tale sort of way, that doesn't take itself or its representation of characters and concepts even the slightest bit seriously.

I don't just want to shit all over this, I am comming from a position of genuine confusion here. In my mind there's all sorts of possibilities, why she went with that trope and those examples in the first video. Could just be the most popular/visible franchises to lay the groundwork for future episodes and how those games influenced the more nuanced examples yet to come. I am definitely interested in future episodes and the points she's going to make. But I have to ask the readers, who have a stronger grasp on the topic and feel the video was well executed and spot on in terms of content: do you feel it is safe to say this was basically a primer to introduce a very deeply underlying concept, which doesn't hold much water within the examples she provided, or did I miss something very fundamental, if I still have a hard time seeing a problem with the examples specifically? Apologies if this is one of those "Dude, it's just an example!" moments, but I genuienely have a hard time telling how much stock to put into them or rather getting a clear grasp on what is actually perceived as problemtaic characterization and thus on what basis to form a personal perspective towards the subject matter.

On a sidenote, imo it is fascinating to have, on one hand, this series trying to point out how female characters are objectified and aren't empowered enough to be anything more than object of the male protagonist's interest (and afaik we're basically all in agreement here that, yes, it is a good thing to point that out and drag the potential problem out into open discussion), while on the other hand, Tomb Raider, where a female lead has to deal with the gritty consequences of her empowerement to be the lead omgsexualizedviolence. I'm probably missing something important and I intend to recover it and become a better person, but in the meantime this is hilarious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, reading through this thread, looking back on the video, all that good internal post analysis, what stuck with me the most is, roughly:

"Representation of women in video games is off and problematic, here is a trope that demonstrates this. Let's look at the Mario games for example."

Really?

Now, as I said, I am most likely very uneducated on the topic, but I feel like this is an actual problem with the video. I can accept that at this point the conception and existance of the video series is important, if just to take a good look at the state of characterization in the medium.

Keep this in mind, because I think you have to depart from it almost instantly for any of the rest of your post to make sense. But yes, the existence of video games is important with respect to this topic for the same reason the existence of any entertainment is important. Video games are a reflection of our society's values - they are a mirror, and they are an amplifier, and they are concentrated, refined version of various themes, tropes, and ideas that our society holds explicitly or implicitly. The reason we look at video games is because video games have meaning - what they are and what they say is part of who we are and what we believe. We can have the "is that really true" debate but since you seem willing to grant it at this point in your post, I think we're good to go. So, remember: video games matter.

I feel like it's a weird subject, since video games are to a large degree power fantasies and objectified characters play into that so easily, which doesn't just hit women to be honest. So I am basically in a rather receptive position, where I am accepting that there's probably a problem and am just waiting to get hit with some education, so I can get a clearer picture on the thematic.

This part is where I got very confused. First, because things are "power fantasies" and "objectified characters play into that so easily," this "doesn't just hit women to be honest." I haven't watched Sarkeesian's video yet, but does she ever claim that any of this only "hits" women? That would be an interesting claim to make, but it's stronger than what almost anyone ever says. Mostly when feminists talk about this stuff, it is in the context of how it fucks over women, because in modern society, women get fucked over by this stuff, but because this stuff is omnipresent and inescapable, of course it "hits" men too. It "hits" everyone. But women get hit hardest.

You say video games are power fantasies but really they're male power fantasies, to a large degree. We barely even have a concept of female power fantasies, but the general idea is that male power fantasies focus on what society traditionally considers to be man-like characteristics, like physical strength, leadership, stoic acceptance of the noble burden of saving others from evil, etc. Even a basic glance at the sorts of things society says about strong women in leadership positions and so on should be enough to reveal that they get a lot of shit for instantiating what are traditionally seen as manlike attributes.

So when video games reify and reinforce this kind of thinking by, for instance, constantly making their women into Damsels in Distress, video games hurt, or they reflect the hurt.

And what I get is having pointed out that the portrayal of female characters is problematic in two series, in which the portrayal of everything is problematic - and as far as I can tell completely meant to be that way in an overstereotypical fairy tale sort of way, that doesn't take itself or its representation of characters and concepts even the slightest bit seriously.

The fact that other things are problematic does not change whether something, in this case the Damsels in Distress trope, is problematic. If I rob you and stab you, and you get mad about the stabbing, it's no help for me to say "all you've pointed out is that the stabbing is problematic in the context of a process where everything is problematic." It's like, yes, but I stabbed you, so...

Equally puzzling is your claim that games are meant to be "overstereotypical" and that they don't take themselves seriously (I guess you're talking about Mario specifically here? Or maybe not?). Again, that totally doesn't make it okay, for two reasons. First, we need to ask ourselves what it means for these things to be stereotypical: it means they are so common that it's almost laughable. Is that really better? If stuff like the Damsel in Distress is so omnipresent that you're not sure it's worth talking about? Hardly! It just shows how deeply ingrained these fundamentally unhelpful and offensive tropes. Moreover, failing to take something seriously does not excuse one from criticism. If I don't take my robbery and stabbing of you seriously, that hardly makes a difference to you. Whether Mario really sets out to say "women need to know their place - it's being rescued, not doing the rescuing" or whether Mario says "ohoho, we don't believe any of this of course, women are fully capable, but by the way you always have to rescue them" is completely beside the point because it occurs in the context of a culture where the overall theme is overwhelmingly one of reinforcement of the trope.

That's why it's so important that these things are tropes rather than just stuff in a few games. They're only damaging when they're omnipresent ideas in society that girls growing up couldn't escape if they tried, at least not without incurring a lot shit at every turn from the people who think we should all try to fit into whatever boxes society thinks we should.

I don't just want to shit all over this, I am comming from a position of genuine confusion here. In my mind there's all sorts of possibilities, why she went with that trope and those examples in the first video. Could just be the most popular/visible franchises to lay the groundwork for future episodes and how those games influenced the more nuanced examples yet to come. I am definitely interested in future episodes and the points she's going to make. But I have to ask the readers, who have a stronger grasp on the topic and feel the video was well executed and spot on in terms of content: do you feel it is safe to say this was basically a primer to introduce a very deeply underlying concept, which doesn't hold much water within the examples she provided, or did I miss something very fundamental, if I still have a hard time seeing a problem with the examples specifically? Apologies if this is one of those "Dude, it's just an example!" moments, but I genuienely have a hard time telling how much stock to put into them or rather getting a clear grasp on what is actually perceived as problemtaic characterization and thus on what basis to form a personal perspective towards the subject matter.

The whole idea of tropes is that any given example is almost never going to look bad. It's like the discussion about Hotline Miami on one of the previous Idle Thumbs podcasts. The Thumbs all said stuff like "I wish this were like, one of the weird hyperviolent games" whereas instead the reality we have is that every video game is Hotline Miami. If whatever Mario is doing that makes its Damsel in Distress is okay to you were something that only Mario did, or that only a few games did, that would be fine. Girls growing up would see womanhood instantiated in all sorts of roles, society would be accepting of women who acted in all sorts of ways, and so on. But, nope, turns out we have some very specific, patently hurtful tropes that women in entertainment are confined to.

On a sidenote, imo it is fascinating to have, on one hand, this series trying to point out how female characters are objectified and aren't empowered enough to be anything more than object of the male protagonist's interest (and afaik we're basically all in agreement here that, yes, it is a good thing to point that out and drag the potential problem out into open discussion), while on the other hand, Tomb Raider, where a female lead has to deal with the gritty consequences of her empowerement to be the lead omgsexualizedviolence. I'm probably missing something important and I intend to recover it and become a better person, but in the meantime this is hilarious.

Except that the new Lara was explicitly designed to be a Damsel in Distress in the sense that she's someone you'll want to protect rather than someone you'll want to empower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video really reflects her previous work, its C grade work. She brings things up but doesn't explain them, she has potential for a genuine discussion but doesn't want to (or can't i'm not sure) put the extra mile in to say something meaningful.

 

There's nothing that she's said here that hasn't been said better and in more detail in other places, Extra credits is a great example in paticular their female characters episode

 

I do have one paticular grip i'd like to indulge and that's her first point reagrding starfox adventures.The way she tells it its like nintendo are massive arseholes that see a company were making a game with a strong female lead and jumped in and bullied them into making it a male character, not mentioning why they did it,its obvious why they made Fox the lead, to give it brand recognition to sell more units, whereas she just examines it on its face value. This may not be as relevant but she also doesn't talk about how the game was recieved, Starfox Adventures was universally panned and hated by newcomers and veterans to the series alike. I only mention this because I'm willing to bet she is going to have a whole bloody episode dedicated to Other M and not mention how gamers or critics themselves reacted to that trainwreck of a game or its development cycle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a.) wrong, because dismissing buzzwords for being loaded and incapable of allowing neutral discussion is not the same thing as dismissing an entire social activist stance off-hand to insult people I don't like.

b.) good, you're at least thinking about it, even if you're still making up reasons to justify your visceral reaction.

 

The bit I've cut out is so puffed up and so far off the mark I'm not even going to address it. Regarding that though, you're now on my ignore list. Trying to appeal to rational debate whilst also trying to push someone's buttons is not classy. It's really, super fucking evident you're making a lot of assumptions while trying to present yourself as impartial. Regarding the rest:

 

Thanks for informing me why it's okay for you but not others to control the terminology of the debate, and also writing off my response as a visceral one rather than something I've, you know, thought about. That's not intensely patronising at all. I could go on at some length about the emotion/reason dichotomy being a false one that's lived with us since the Greek philosophers, and one that's often recurrent in male critiques of feminism.

 

In this along with other threads though, I think you've shown that the only way you're willing to seriously engage with others is if they do so on your terms, and if they don't you'll browbeat them in increasingly minute circles until they give up. It reminds me of being 20 and on the internet. Fuck that in the mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This video really reflects her previous work, its C grade work. She brings things up but doesn't explain them, she has potential for a genuine discussion but doesn't want to (or can't i'm not sure) put the extra mile in to say something meaningful.

 

There's nothing that she's said here that hasn't been said better and in more detail in other places, Extra credits is a great example in paticular their female characters episode

 

I do have one paticular grip i'd like to indulge and that's her first point reagrding starfox adventures.The way she tells it its like nintendo are massive arseholes that see a company were making a game with a strong female lead and jumped in and bullied them into making it a male character, not mentioning why they did it,its obvious why they made Fox the lead, to give it brand recognition to sell more units, whereas she just examines it on its face value. This may not be as relevant but she also doesn't talk about how the game was recieved, Starfox Adventures was universally panned and hated by newcomers and veterans to the series alike. I only mention this because I'm willing to bet she is going to have a whole bloody episode dedicated to Other M and not mention how gamers or critics themselves reacted to that trainwreck of a game or its development cycle

But almost nobody gave these games bad reviews because of sexism. Just because a game is bad doesn't mean it isn't also sexist...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck that in the mouth.

 

Now, this is the proper tone of discourse for a thumbs thread. :tup:

 

I too can relate this to being 20 and on the internet. I can likewise relate to Luftmensch, in both the cadence of his pedantry and the magnitude of his wrongheadedness on the topic thereof. Someone told me at the time to exercise humility. It took me forever to actually internalize this as an on-topic morsel of criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant and awesome:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JeXDNg7scyU

 

My three year old daughter and I play a lot of old games together. Her favorite is Donkey Kong. Two days ago, she asked me if she could play as the girl and save Mario. She's played as Princess Toadstool in Super Mario Bros. 2 and naturally just assumed she could do the same in Donkey Kong. I told her we couldn't in that particular Mario game, she seemed really bummed out by that. So what else am I supposed to do? Now I'm up at midnight hacking the ROM, replacing Mario with Pauline. I'm using the 2010 NES Donkey Kong ROM. I've redrawn Mario's frames and I swapped the palettes in the ROM. I replaced the M at the top with a P for Pauline. Thanks to Kevin Wilson for giving me the lead on the tools and advice.

 

Dad of the century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This part is where I got very confused. First, because things are "power fantasies" and "objectified characters play into that so easily," this "doesn't just hit women to be honest." I haven't watched Sarkeesian's video yet, but does she ever claim that any of this only "hits" women? That would be an interesting claim to make, but it's stronger than what almost anyone ever says. Mostly when feminists talk about this stuff, it is in the context of how it fucks over women, because in modern society, women get fucked over by this stuff, but because this stuff is omnipresent and inescapable, of course it "hits" men too. It "hits" everyone. But women get hit hardest.

You say video games are power fantasies but really they're male power fantasies, to a large degree.

Yeah, I was considering using the term "male power fantasies", but it's just not universally true, at least not to make it a blanket statement. I mean, okay, it is true, but a bit more nuanced. For example, I am German, which means for me that in a lot of video games (and movies for that matter) I am the bad guy. Now this is oversimplifying on my part, of course I am not, point I am making it is really easy to shoot Nazis in video games without much thinking about it, as historically inaccurate it may be to vilify an entire nation and every one of its soldiers. In that way I would say it is not necessarilly a male power fantasy but one that might pertain more to nationality than to gender. And I don't want to dive too deep into that one, it's probably not the best analogy and it's not something i see as an inherent problem. However, the whole reason I brought up that objectified characters play into power fantasies so easily, is because I considered (decieded against it initially, because I don't feel it is really a good point to make) bringing up the question what about that really is so terrible. What I mean is that I had to think about how putting the generic German Nazi into the typical WW2 shooter enables that sort of power fantasy, too, and if I were to ask myself, if I had a personal problem with that, I'd have to say "no, I get it, it's fine, just please keep in mind everyone, that this is historically speaking slightly shaky and don't let this game influence your real life perspective on the subject". This is probably not really pertaining to the subject matter at hand all that much, but comming from that mindset I sometimes look at games (and movies for that matter) and can't help but think in the context of this discussion: "yeah, sometimes the story is 'boy saves girl'. is that really so terrible?"

Now in my mind no one actually thinks it's that bad (god, I hope so, at least), but the frequency of this story archetype could be a problem. Which is fair, imo, but then I think it is important to be aware of the examples we're using and whether those would be a problem in a vacuum. Which reminds me, she had provided "hundreds of examples", I still need to take a look at those.

The fact that other things are problematic does not change whether something, in this case the Damsels in Distress trope, is problematic. If I rob you and stab you, and you get mad about the stabbing, it's no help for me to say "all you've pointed out is that the stabbing is problematic in the context of a process where everything is problematic." It's like, yes, but I stabbed you, so...

Equally puzzling is your claim that games are meant to be "overstereotypical" and that they don't take themselves seriously (I guess you're talking about Mario specifically here? Or maybe not?). Again, that totally doesn't make it okay, for two reasons. First, we need to ask ourselves what it means for these things to be stereotypical: it means they are so common that it's almost laughable. Is that really better? If stuff like the Damsel in Distress is so omnipresent that you're not sure it's worth talking about? Hardly! It just shows how deeply ingrained these fundamentally unhelpful and offensive tropes. Moreover, failing to take something seriously does not excuse one from criticism. If I don't take my robbery and stabbing of you seriously, that hardly makes a difference to you. Whether Mario really sets out to say "women need to know their place - it's being rescued, not doing the rescuing" or whether Mario says "ohoho, we don't believe any of this of course, women are fully capable, but by the way you always have to rescue them" is completely beside the point because it occurs in the context of a culture where the overall theme is overwhelmingly one of reinforcement of the trope.

Yeah, I have to disagree here and hard. It's probably my fault, I was aware that my wording of that stuff was likely very suboptimal but couldn't really figure out a way around that (which might be telling in itself).

Moreover, failing to take something seriously does not excuse one from criticism.

Yeah, I wonder how true that is. Mario gets big and more powerful on mushrooms. But that is not a statement on the validity of drug abuse. Link runs all over towns smashing pots to find rubies. That is not a political statement promoting vandalism. Why then is the princess to be rescued a serious statement about the role of women?

And actually, no, it isn't. I mean, I vaguely remember that time, when the reveal of Samus Aran, the idea of even having a female protagonist was a somewhat big deal and I absolutely think it shouldn't be, it should be completely normal. But, on the specific example of Mario, it's a bit weird to say girls got shafted by having the character they might want to (or feel like they should) identify with be the eternal Damsel in Distress, when the male equivalent is Mario - hardly a power fantasy, more like just fantasy. Now I am not sure how much these games actually did to cement this foundation of having the woman be something that needs to be rescued, how much games just iterated on that concept, prettying up that princess with more pixels and polies, and there might be some fault and responsibility there in not having provided a stronger, more diverse foundation. But personally, when I am looking forward to learn about disrepresentation in video games, it is in the context of games that actually feature/boast characters and character development, as I think there is actually potential to mess it up and to really disrepresent. Whereas Mario barely even has characters, those things are merely dolls without much of a personality and basing any sort of sociological observation on those strikes me about as valid as analyzing the representation of pilots in Airplane!.

While it may look like it, it is not as if I want to dismiss this right away. I think I understand what you're saying and how the depiction of women as helpless abductees over and over again is problematic and the context/theme of the game itself not cushioning the blow of the trope. However, I think there are games which do put a good amount of focus on character interaction and it would be a bit more revealing to take a look at a female Shepard for example and whether her portrayal is something we could point towards citing a positive trend in the portrayal of women. I realize I just watched the 20 minute inaugural video, which can't possibly cover anything. It just feels a tiny bit frustrating having Mario in its stead as an example. And while Mario may not be excluded from criticism, it's also not running the danger of being confused with anything that tries to paint a faithful picture of the role of women, Italians and turtles in our society.

Then again, I've seen girls in the process of identifying with Princess Peach and Mai Shiranui (of all things!), so maybe I am completely wrong and backwards here. Not to mention, if the concept of the Damsel in Distress is, as you write, so omnipresent that I wouldn't even fully grasp its ridiculousness, then I'd probably not even fully grasp its ridiculousness, which would necessitate a stronger, more objective look at my point of view here. Which I am generall trying to pull off, but I'll try to keep that in mind and be more scrutinizing of my opinions.

That's why it's so important that these things are tropes rather than just stuff in a few games. They're only damaging when they're omnipresent ideas in society that girls growing up couldn't escape if they tried, at least not without incurring a lot shit at every turn from the people who think we should all try to fit into whatever boxes society thinks we should.The whole idea of tropes is that any given example is almost never going to look bad. It's like the discussion about Hotline Miami on one of the previous Idle Thumbs podcasts. The Thumbs all said stuff like "I wish this were like, one of the weird hyperviolent games" whereas instead the reality we have is that every video game is Hotline Miami. If whatever Mario is doing that makes its Damsel in Distress is okay to you were something that only Mario did, or that only a few games did, that would be fine. Girls growing up would see womanhood instantiated in all sorts of roles, society would be accepting of women who acted in all sorts of ways, and so on. But, nope, turns out we have some very specific, patently hurtful tropes that women in entertainment are confined to.

So basically what we have on the market right now would be fine in principle, if we actually got the other side of the coin, too, or at least more of it. The other side being way more and/or better games that depict characters, regardless of sex/race/etc in a more balanced, believable and ultimately responsible way instead of falling back on tropes and stereotyping. I'd find myself in complete agreement with that. Although in that case i wouldn't see that much of a problem with the games/concepts that are there, but with those that aren't. But that is probably just nitpicking at this point. Though I feel like that in itself wasn't so much presented in the video. But that's something that's yet to come or it will become a clearer message between the lines.

Except that the new Lara was explicitly designed to be a Damsel in Distress in the sense that she's someone you'll want to protect rather than someone you'll want to empower.

Ah and there it is. Thanks for the link, I haven't seen that. According to the definition of a Damsel in Distress laid out by Sarkeesian, I'd disagree on the account of Lara being one, but other statements from that interview are a bit problematic imo.

When people play Lara, they don't really project themselves into the character.They're more like 'I want to protect her.' There's this sort of dynamic of 'I'm going to this adventure with her and trying to protect her.'

That one is slighly saddening and if I didn't know about a problem with the depiction of women in video games, i guess here it is.

PS:

Apologies for any accidental rambling. I feel like at the core i might actually be agreeing with everyone and just get caught up in details. Thanks for indulging, I'll try to work on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the whole reason I brought up that objectified characters play into power fantasies so easily, is because I considered (decieded against it initially, because I don't feel it is really a good point to make) bringing up the question what about that really is so terrible. What I mean is that I had to think about how putting the generic German Nazi into the typical WW2 shooter enables that sort of power fantasy, too, and if I were to ask myself, if I had a personal problem with that, I'd have to say "no, I get it, it's fine, just please keep in mind everyone, that this is historically speaking slightly shaky and don't let this game influence your real life perspective on the subject".

Okay, but that's because nothing much bad happens when almost every depiction of Nazis in society is "bad people who it is okay to kill." There aren't a lot of negative consequences of that trope. Whereas women have been oppressed by society for thousands of years and currently are still oppressed. Horrific things happen to women on a daily basis because, in part, of how they are depicted in media.

This is probably not really pertaining to the subject matter at hand all that much, but comming from that mindset I sometimes look at games (and movies for that matter) and can't help but think in the context of this discussion: "yeah, sometimes the story is 'boy saves girl'. is that really so terrible?"

Now in my mind no one actually thinks it's that bad (god, I hope so, at least), but the frequency of this story archetype could be a problem. Which is fair, imo, but then I think it is important to be aware of the examples we're using and whether those would be a problem in a vacuum. Which reminds me, she had provided "hundreds of examples", I still need to take a look at those.Yeah, I have to disagree here and hard. It's probably my fault, I was aware that my wording of that stuff was likely very suboptimal but couldn't really figure out a way around that (which might be telling in itself).

Really? You think that when presented with hundreds of examples of a trope, we need to examine each and every one and find out which are okay? Here's a hint: it doesn't matter! The point is that when these become omnipresent tropes it's a problem. Each individual one, on its own, might be perfectly fine! It's only when they're grouped together that we have a problem.

Moreover, failing to take something seriously does not excuse one from criticism.

Yeah, I wonder how true that is. Mario gets big and more powerful on mushrooms. But that is not a statement on the validity of drug abuse. Link runs all over towns smashing pots to find rubies. That is not a political statement promoting vandalism. Why then is the princess to be rescued a serious statement about the role of women?

Because every other game and every other movie says the same thing?

And actually, no, it isn't. I mean, I vaguely remember that time, when the reveal of Samus Aran, the idea of even having a female protagonist was a somewhat big deal and I absolutely think it shouldn't be, it should be completely normal. But, on the specific example of Mario, it's a bit weird to say girls got shafted by having the character they might want to (or feel like they should) identify with be the eternal Damsel in Distress, when the male equivalent is Mario - hardly a power fantasy, more like just fantasy. Now I am not sure how much these games actually did to cement this foundation of having the woman be something that needs to be rescued, how much games just iterated on that concept, prettying up that princess with more pixels and polies, and there might be some fault and responsibility there in not having provided a stronger, more diverse foundation. But personally, when I am looking forward to learn about disrepresentation in video games, it is in the context of games that actually feature/boast characters and character development, as I think there is actually potential to mess it up and to really disrepresent. Whereas Mario barely even has characters, those things are merely dolls without much of a personality and basing any sort of sociological observation on those strikes me about as valid as analyzing the representation of pilots in Airplane!.

You're going about this thing in the entirely wrong way. You seem to be talking about these things in terms of political messages and agendas and stuff. That's not at all how it works. It's completely irrelevant what Mario's agenda is, or even whether it has an agenda (I think it probably doesn't... it's Mario...). The point isn't what the games are setting out to say - the point is what our culture as a whole, and what video game culture specifically, says about women. And the answer is that video game culture says a lot of horrific shit about women. Whether it says it alone or whether it says it because it's aping movies and other culture or whatever is completely irrelevant. Games say what they say, and they don't say much that's good.

While it may look like it, it is not as if I want to dismiss this right away. I think I understand what you're saying and how the depiction of women as helpless abductees over and over again is problematic and the context/theme of the game itself not cushioning the blow of the trope. However, I think there are games which do put a good amount of focus on character interaction and it would be a bit more revealing to take a look at a female Shepard for example and whether her portrayal is something we could point towards citing a positive trend in the portrayal of women. I realize I just watched the 20 minute inaugural video, which can't possibly cover anything. It just feels a tiny bit frustrating having Mario in its stead as an example. And while Mario may not be excluded from criticism, it's also not running the danger of being confused with anything that tries to paint a faithful picture of the role of women, Italians and turtles in our society.

Who the fuck cares if some games do a good job? I think that's video #2, and it's largely irrelevant to video #1, which is about how most games do a bad job. And I'm really missing your point about Mario which you've been trying to make the entire time without success, as far as I can tell - nobody's going to confuse Mario with a realistic depiction of society? Well no shit Sherlock. Did her video say that? (That's an honest question - I haven't watched it.) I would've assumed the point of choosing Mario is not that it's an accurate depiction of what happens in real life. The point of choosing Mario is that it's an immensely popular and culturally crucial instantiation of the trope in question. There are plenty of realistic games with Damsels in Distress but you hardly have to be a realistic game to say things about gender roles.

Then again, I've seen girls in the process of identifying with Princess Peach and Mai Shiranui (of all things!), so maybe I am completely wrong and backwards here. Not to mention, if the concept of the Damsel in Distress is, as you write, so omnipresent that I wouldn't even fully grasp its ridiculousness, then I'd probably not even fully grasp its ridiculousness, which would necessitate a stronger, more objective look at my point of view here. Which I am generall trying to pull off, but I'll try to keep that in mind and be more scrutinizing of my opinions.So basically what we have on the market right now would be fine in principle, if we actually got the other side of the coin, too, or at least more of it. The other side being way more and/or better games that depict characters, regardless of sex/race/etc in a more balanced, believable and ultimately responsible way instead of falling back on tropes and stereotyping. I'd find myself in complete agreement with that.

Okay, because that's the entire point. Tropes in video games are things that are omnipresent and done to death, not weird undercurrents of countercultural contrariness. If Mario were like, one of the few games where the woman is a Damsel in Distress, and if women weren't saddles iwth all sorts of other awful tropes by video game culture, then Sarkeesian wouldn't be making this video series.

Although in that case i wouldn't see that much of a problem with the games/concepts that are there, but with those that aren't.

No, because adding something to the current discourse that simply adds to the trope is itself bad. Just because something is justified in a vacuum doesn't mean it's justified period. If you write a story where the women are all Damsels in Distress, that's not necessarily an awful story in isolation, but it's basically a waste of effort in the current world where you're just going to make things worse. I'm starting to feel basically the same way about violence and male power fantasy video games. I of course have no problem with the existence of something like Hotline Miami or Dishonored in isolation, but games about stomping faces in or stabbing motherfuckers in the neck are the rule rather than the exception, I think it's time to step back and ask ourselves whether 11 out of every 12 games we greenlight have to have body counts that rival most action movies. It's like if every movie coming out of Hollywood were either The Expendables or Django Unchained.

But forget violence - because we are at the point where pretty much every game that comes out is sexist. So... that definitely has to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, but that's because nothing much bad happens when almost every depiction of Nazis in society is "bad people who it is okay to kill." There aren't a lot of negative consequences of that trope.

There are potentially incredibly negative consequences to that trope and it is somewhat shocking to read you suggest otherwise. It's also a different topic, so let's leave it at that and agree to disagree for the moment.

You're going about this thing in the entirely wrong way.

Well, that might be possible. From what I understand of our discourse, the problem is not one specific example, the problem is the sheer overabundance and dominance of those examples in spite of all the things games could say, but rarely do. My question, and it was an honest one, was whether the video was meant to be understood that way or not. You suggest that it is, all is well.

I had been zeroing in on Mario because that was a main example and I got the implication that this series indeed was problematic because of the way it handles its characterisation of women, not because it serves as an example for the majority of games. I.e. the difference between "Women are objectified in Mario." vs "Women are objectified in Mario and this is how it works in almost every game in existance." You suggest it's the latter. I was hoping it would be. The presentation itself left me a bit unsure about that, though, so I felt it was important to ask, since there's a world of difference.

However, it seems like that's more semantics and/or my inability not to scrutinize mere examples for validity or look at things through a cultural lense. Acceptable outcome, thanks for clearing a few things up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mh, you raised this issue in a threat that was already a burning mess of anger and cantankerousness, you raised it at page nine and it was already acknowledged and discussed at page one (as well as other pages), you raised the issue while the threat was rather talking about the strange and suspicious level of hyper-scrutiny this particular video gets treated with and the issue was part of this nit-picky, hyper-sensitive, sometimes schizophrenic scrutiny for the whole run of the thread. I don't mean to throw you in with this mess, really, maybe just explain why people reacted the way they reacted.

I agree, it is worth talking about, but (as I said like twelve pages earlier) I didn't have a problem with it, for me it worked.

Thanks for explaining that. I'm guilty of not reading the thread. My bad!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant and awesome:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JeXDNg7scyU

 

My three year old daughter and I play a lot of old games together. Her favorite is Donkey Kong. Two days ago, she asked me if she could play as the girl and save Mario. She's played as Princess Toadstool in Super Mario Bros. 2 and naturally just assumed she could do the same in Donkey Kong. I told her we couldn't in that particular Mario game, she seemed really bummed out by that. So what else am I supposed to do? Now I'm up at midnight hacking the ROM, replacing Mario with Pauline. I'm using the 2010 NES Donkey Kong ROM. I've redrawn Mario's frames and I swapped the palettes in the ROM. I replaced the M at the top with a P for Pauline. Thanks to Kevin Wilson for giving me the lead on the tools and advice.

 

Dad of the century.

Aw, that's the best!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are potentially incredibly negative consequences to that trope and it is somewhat shocking to read you suggest otherwise. It's also a different topic, so let's leave it at that and agree to disagree for the moment.

Well, yes, I agree, but I thought you didn't, so I was just granting it. The point is just that tropes that cause damage are bad. If the Nazi thing causes damage, then yes! Nazis shouldn't be generic punching bags! How hard is this? If a trope causes systemic damage in society in the form of legitimately horrific issues that are caused by and reinforced by culture, then we ought to stop instantiating the trope. Whatever the case with Nazis as punching bags, I think this is clearly the case for Damsels in Distress and many other Tropes About Women.

Well, that might be possible. From what I understand of our discourse, the problem is not one specific example, the problem is the sheer overabundance and dominance of those examples in spite of all the things games could say, but rarely do. My question, and it was an honest one, was whether the video was meant to be understood that way or not. You suggest that it is, all is well.

I had been zeroing in on Mario because that was a main example and I got the implication that this series indeed was problematic because of the way it handles its characterisation of women, not because it serves as an example for the majority of games. I.e. the difference between "Women are objectified in Mario." vs "Women are objectified in Mario and this is how it works in almost every game in existance." You suggest it's the latter. I was hoping it would be. The presentation itself left me a bit unsure about that, though, so I felt it was important to ask, since there's a world of difference.

Fair enough. I should just watch the video...

However, it seems like that's more semantics and/or my inability not to scrutinize mere examples for validity or look at things through a cultural lense. Acceptable outcome, thanks for clearing a few things up.

I'll watch the video at some point and report back. If she really wants to say that Mario is toxic sexist bullshit even in a magical fantasy land where Damsel in Distress isn't a trope and women and men are perfectly equal, I think I'd have to disagree. As far as I can tell, the problem with Mario isn't that Peach is a woman. The problem is that Peach is a stereotypical Damsel in Distress (and she is lots of other stereotypes too, which doesn't help things at all).

Share this post


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