Feminist Frequency

[Argobot]

Whoops, two posts, got overly excited there.

[youmeyou]

I think the "for the benefit of the hero/protagonist's story" caveat is probably the one that makes it work. It's an extremely common and valuable storytelling element to completely disempower the protagonist. This is where the tension comes in, where you have major reversals and redemptions. It's easy, without making that distinction, to muddy a story analysis with gender politics. The scene where Indiana Jones is going to be crushed under the lowering ceiling could be interpreted as damsel in distress if he was Georgia Jones, but that interpretation would only serve to discredit an otherwise fun and exciting story. Political (in this case feminist) story analysis is, to a degree, prescriptive, so it's necessary to place limits on its scope or else instead of highlighting differences it creates them.

 

 

This is addressed in the video. The difference between damsels and heros is agency. Both get locked up and put in compromising situations. But the hero breaks himself out while the damsel must be saved.

 

Also: "muddy a story analysis with gender politics?" Seriously? Gender politics, race politics, class politics are present in every piece of culture ever produced. It takes willful ignorance to attempt to sell your work as something divorced from politics. In fact, it is a political statement of itself to do so.

[Twig]

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

Oh god no. There's no need to go around assuming I'm the worst human being on the planet.

 

"That's not to say I don't appreciate what she's doing and why it's necessary."

 

I said that earlier.

 

My brain comment was a slight at people who don't seem to realize this is a thing. The people who are like "yo this ain't a problem it never happens". It's so incredibly obvious that it's also incredibly bizarre how there exist people who don't get it. She stated fact after fact after fact and did very little actual analysis of those facts. Because they're facts! How do people not see this shit when it's right in there fact every day of their life? It's bizarre.

 

Aaaaaand repeat in various other paraphrasing sentences ad nauseam.

 

But that doesn't mean I think less of the video, or that I think it's not necessary. (It also doesn't change that I think it's a really boring video.)

[BigJKO]

Yeah, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you completely and overreacted.

[Luftmensch]

The Damsel in Distress definition is addressed in the video but there seemed to be some dispute here in the thread.

The claim that everything is inherently pregnant with gender politics is a really politically-centric view. Insisting everything's political, period, is true in that the field of politics encompasses anything and everything it wants, but it's nonessential to talk about the structure of the Golden Gate Bridge in terms of how it represents income disparity in the Bay Area, even though I'm sure someone can, probably has, done that. To a women's studies student with a hammer, every problem looks like a patriarchal power structure constructed to suppress women's rights, or however the saying goes.

[Stephen]

Limbo is an excellent example of directly subverting the damsel in distress trope.

You spend the whole game looking for your lost sister after waking up in the middle of the woods, and when you finally get to her at the end she disappears and you wake up again in the forest. The way that game plays with the trope, forcing you to realize that she isn't the one that needs saving after all is so subtle and brilliant that I'm going to sit down tomorrow and play through that game all over again.

[Twig]

Yeah, I'm sorry. I misunderstood you completely and overreacted.

It's cool! I'm sorry for being unclear and jokey. U:

[jeremywc]

Limbo is an excellent example of directly subverting the damsel in distress trope.

You spend the whole game looking for your lost sister after waking up in the middle of the woods, and when you finally get to her at the end she disappears and you wake up again in the forest. The way that game plays with the trope, forcing you to realize that she isn't the one that needs saving after all is so subtle and brilliant that I'm going to sit down tomorrow and play through that game all over again.

 

It's been awhile since I played through Limbo, but if memory serves me correctly, you didn't learn about the girl until the end of the game. You just wake up in the woods and start walking. I don't remember any sequences presenting a girl that needed saving. I need to play through it again as well.

[SecretAsianMan]

I'm actually curious, how many male video game characters can you think of that are imprisoned, don't break out themselves but instead are rescued by a female character? I'm trying to think of any.. maybe Pey'j in Beyond Good and Evil? I never played that through to the end. 

 I think I saw a glimpse of it in the preview for the second episode, but Super Princess Peach for the DS actually has Peach as the protagonist who must rescue Toad, Luigi, and Mario from Bowser.

[Twig]

It's been awhile since I played through Limbo, but if memory serves me correctly, you didn't learn about the girl until the end of the game. You just wake up in the woods and start walking. I don't remember any sequences presenting a girl that needed saving. I need to play through it again as well.

There are a few moments where you see a girl, although the game never explains who she is (or even if she's your sister or just a friend or what), and ALSO I think when you see her before the end of the game she's just a trap? Or she immediately disappears or something? The game never explains anything. Why are other children trying to murder you? WHAT'S HAPPENING. The only thing clear is you're in limbo, because it's the name of the game.

 

Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

[Reyturner]

My $0.02 on the video: this is a terrible execution of a completely worthy idea.

 

A single talking head scolding "games" for 20 minutes over something that a lot of people think is harmless (this normalized attitude towards sexism is itself is a problem I know) isn't going to win anyone over.

 

I really hope she makes these a bit more engaging in the future as the message really is important; see Vihart, Day9 Daily, Crash Course or Half in the Bag for ways to make me want to watch you talk about anything for 20+ minutes.

 

Honestly, I think a lot of social justice advocates lose sight of something very important; it isn't enough to be right, you have to be convincing. While it might feel like you're cheapening an important issue by making it engaging, either with humor or by treating opposing views with something other than acid scorn garnished with sarcasm, you have to make people laugh before you can get them excited to be on your side. She isn't going to reach anyone by calling Double Dragon Neon (a game that NOBODY likes) "regressive trash" even if it is warranted. 

[Luftmensch]

I think this would have been better if either it committed to being a research paper or it ditched that pretense and committed to good journalism. You can call something regressive crap and still be a good journalist. I disagree that the insult is unwarranted, but I think if this is a video that throws out insults at crappy games, the academic pretense absolutely was.

[Argobot]

But video games are a visual medium, and a lot of the issues they have are represented purely by visuals. It would be incredibly boring to read an academic paper that describes a female character being punched and then carted away with her panties showing--it's much more powerful to have that visual for the reader/watcher to immediately see and process.

[Reyturner]

I think this series absolutely can be executed as a YouTube show, but you need to make it entertaining. Call up Thought Bubble (the guys who do the animated sections of Crash Course), interview some people in the industry, do some skits (see The Death and Rebirth of Superman). 

 

And for the record, I am in no way defending Double Dragon Neon against anything ever. 

[feelthedarkness]

as somebody who works at a STM publisher, she's reaching tens of thousands times more people with her first piece than an academic paper would. 

[Thrik]

Watched it. That was really... boring. It's like she's just reeling off Wikipedia research and applying virtually no real analysis or points worthy of consideration. If she had even an ounce of enthusiasm it'd probably help, it's almost like she's just reading an essay out loud. An essay that ticks the boxes and would get a pass, but is wholly unnoteworthy.

[Luftmensch]

as somebody who works at a STM publisher, she's reaching tens of thousands times more people with her first piece than an academic paper would.

Right, which I acknowledged before, but doesn't magically absolve her of critique for making poor use of the medium. Good business != good art (or journalism, or writing, or whatever noun you prefer). It's just a lecture with a few motion graphics and swishy sound effects. A two-second shot of pixel panties doesn't warrant 22 minutes of video.

[Reyturner]

as somebody who works at a STM publisher, she's reaching tens of thousands times more people with her first piece than an academic paper would. 

and she'd reach hundreds of thousands of times more with a GOOD video. 

[feelthedarkness]

Right, which I acknowledged before, but doesn't magically absolve her of critique for making poor use of the medium. Good business != good art (or journalism, or writing, or whatever noun you prefer). It's just a lecture with a few motion graphics and swishy sound effects. A two-second shot of pixel panties doesn't warrant 22 minutes of video.

 

So that's what you got out of that? 22 seconds of panties. Not like hundreds of examples? It's kind of dark man.

 

Also, on top of the usual picking apart she receives, I'm seeing people focus on the one instance of her raising her voice. Two people on this thread are kind of focusing on that, but you're insisting she makes a more "entertaining video"? She's now obligated to entertain people who are predisposed to ignore anything she's trying to say?

[Gormongous]

It kinda blows my mind that the two main complaints for this video are "not engaging enough" and "not professional enough". Saarkeesian's videos need to be full of new analyses and conclusions on age-old tropes, presented in a way that shows she did all the research herself, while still being funny and entertaining yet respectful to the games in question? You guys are tough masters, I've met maybe one or two academics in my entire postgraduate career who'd be able to please y'all.

 

Honestly, I think the video, only the first of many, is good for what it did. It cleanly and calmly defined the trope, presented examples, and explained its effects. It'll be useful going forward as Feminism 101 for gamers who don't see anything wrong with many of the problematic themes and attitudes in their chosen medium. That's all it needs to be.

 

The claim that everything is inherently pregnant with gender politics is a really politically-centric view. Insisting everything's political, period, is true in that the field of politics encompasses anything and everything it wants, but it's nonessential to talk about the structure of the Golden Gate Bridge in terms of how it represents income disparity in the Bay Area, even though I'm sure someone can, probably has, done that. To a women's studies student with a hammer, every problem looks like a patriarchal power structure constructed to suppress women's rights, or however the saying goes.

 

First book, first chapter of Aristotle's Politics says it best: man is inherently a political animal. Politics is the interaction of human beings within a community, therefore everything is political, even your choice to be apolitical. Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Reyturner]

So that's what you got out of that? 22 seconds of panties. Not like hundreds of examples? It's kind of dark man.

 

Also, on top of the usual picking apart she receives, I'm seeing people focus on the one instance of her raising her voice. Two people on this thread are kind of focusing on that, but you're insisting she makes a more "entertaining video"? She's now obligated to entertain people who are predisposed to ignore anything she's trying to say?

She is if she wants anyone who isn't on her side to care. This is was I was talking about: it isn't enough to be right. 

 

I totally agree with everything she says. I'm actually a big fan of her previous work and I've learned a lot from it... but the worthiness of the message doesn't make up for its lack of execution. 

[feelthedarkness]

I don't think she needs to change the mind of somebody who is currently non-receptive, when she's potentially reaching hundreds of thousands of younger people, kids, educators who might show this to a class. 

[Luftmensch]

She's now obligated to entertain people who are predisposed to ignore anything she's trying to say?

Yes, what I'm saying is that actually she's obligated to make a video my way. You see, I'm a big angry man and all I want is to oppress women. By expressing my opinion with a critique, I'm actually engaging in a power fantasy where Anita is subservient to my masculine desires. Also I am very insecure about my penis. That is what I said. After all, a dead Greek once said that man is political and therefor everything I say must be about power.

Weird, how did all those words get in my mouth?

[feelthedarkness]

well, you picked the right hobby then.

[Twig]

It kinda blows my mind that the two main complaints for this video are "not engaging enough" and "not professional enough". Saarkeesian's videos need to be full of new analyses and conclusions on age-old tropes, presented in a way that shows she did all the research herself, while still being funny and entertaining yet respectful to the games in question?

It doesn't have to be funny and entertaining, but yes of course it has to be engaging. If being funny/entertaining is what it takes, then go for it, but that's not the only avenue for engagement.

 

Being engaging is what grabs people's attention. It's what makes them come back for more. It's what makes them care. If a professor of literature lectures in a deadpan voice, only the most dedicated of students are going to retain any of that information. And that's in an environment where learning is the entire reason for its existence. In the case of this video, if the goal is to reach new people and share the problems of the video game industry's representation of the female gender, well, how are you going to reach most new people if the first video they see bores them to tears?

 

And before you jump down my throat, defending the video and saying it isn't dull, well, that wasn't the point of this post. I thought it was boring, but obviously plenty of people here liked it well enough, so that's definitely something. I only take issue with your implication that a series like this, with the goal of introducing the topic to new people who maybe weren't aware of the problem, shouldn't have to be engaging.