Tropes vs Women in video games

[mesh control]

NOT SARKEESIAN

[blackoak]

Finally watched the original Damsel in Distress video. I even watched a few of the popular "rebuttals," including the one mesh just linked. I'm kind of surprised the original video caused so much "outrage"... this isn't Dworkin level, nor is it laced with pomo theory or academic buzzwords. The response serves as a frustrating reminder that reactionary and regressive thinking is still so prevalent (or at the least, loudly brayed)... I mean, based on all the whining I expected something really extreme; what I instead saw was an intelligent, if somewhat obvious (to me) depiction of the role of women in two of the most popular game franchises. People seem to be getting offended in some vaguely moral way, but it isn't a moral argument about good or bad people and good or bad intentions: it simply IS the meagre role that women have been allowed to sympathize with in these games. It deserves to be noted and criticized--so that it can be changed.

This is coming from someone who's very critical of the role of identity politics in the mainstream left, which seeks to promote "equality" by integrating a tiny sliver of a marginalized group into a rotten status quo (women can torture too! a black man can lay you off! a lesbian can be a landlord! etc etc). But yeah, there's nothing wrong with this video.

[system11]

I'm offended that men in games are so often portrayed as being defined only by a woman needing them.

Storm. Teacup.

[Drum]

I'm offended that men in games are so often portrayed as being defined only by a woman needing them.

Storm. Teacup.

Fucking asinine post.

[system11]

I'm offended that men in games are so often portrayed as being defined only by a woman needing them.

Storm. Teacup.

Fucking asinine post.

It's very simple, I think I pointed it out before. It's human nature for men to want to protect women - and it's human nature for women to seek security in men. Most gamers are male. Companies make games they believe will sell well to the largest market. If anything this will get worse because of 1 million sales being now considered a 'flop'. Therefore, more princesses that need saving. Games by their nature are often a struggle, a competitive thing. When they aren't, people complain that there's no gameplay, competitive adrenaline fuelled struggles are also things that appeal more to men than women. This is why more men follow competitive sport. This is why men on average drive faster and more aggressively than women. This is why more men watch wrestling. This is why most reasonable female characters appear in RPGs and adventure games, which the Youtube debaters seem to have forgotten the existance of, despite those games containing many, many examples of good female characters. I could list some if you like but it would be pointless and I'm sure you can come up with plenty yourself anyway.

Honestly it's like complaining that too many action hero films have men with supporting female cast who periodically need saving. If you insist that games must not contain gender stereotypes, you're simply requesting that fewer games be made. It's not enlightened to pretend that everyone can and should like the same things, it's simple minded.

I can summarise this with a simple puppet show if it will aid understanding.

[blackoak]

That's a false inversion because men aren't *only* or even primarily defined as being the rescuers of women. Its their actively employed traits of intelligence, courage, bravery, ingenuity etc that define them in those games. One of the video responses betrayed its own myopia when it tried to argue that damsels, in turn, portray the traits of forebearance, patience, reliance... I had to laugh, since that assignation of passive traits along strict gender lines is exactly what was being complained about! Again, you have a problem where if you're young, naive, or possessed of bad political ideas, you won't see a problem in the first place.

To that end probably more time should have been spent on developing her thoughts on the social consequences. These worlds and characters inhabit the imagination of kids for hours on end, after all. Give a girl a kitchen and she'll play the cook. We all model behaviors we're exposed to. And I don't think its any surprise that my little sister gravitated toward the games that let her have a hero fantasy with a female character, like Dixie Kong in DKC2 and 3. Personally, I think Mario is particularly worthy of scorn because its clear that financial concerns dominate in the conservatism of the main series; we don't want to "alienate" any cash-paying customer with a more progressive plot. But its exactly when the freedom to lead others and break new ground is NOT taken up that we should be most critical: Mario in 1986? Well, ok. Mario in 2012? No excuse but cowardice and its little call-sign, $$$.

And I wouldn't call the "fEMiNISM GRRR!!!" parade of vitriol a tempest in a teacup either, though I will say that its one wrinkle among many in the cultural fabric. Its disturbing and discouraging either way.

[system11]

That's a false inversion because men aren't *only* or even primarily defined as being the rescuers of women.

I know, but it was a joke.

I'm not sure that trying to get girls more interested in shooting people and boys more interested in cooking is particularly progressive though, it just smacks of trying to enforce equality (or perhaps equivalency) where it doesn't belong. The only real problem as far as I'm concerned, is that that companies are reluctant to fund games with lead female characters (example: Remember Me). It's a shame, but i'm not sure there's much that can be done if the market genuinely can't support it at the AAA blockbuster level. You could go down the route of Mass Effect and allow the player to create their own character, but you end up sacrificing some character development as a result, it won't work in all games.

I do find the whole thing fairly entertaining to watch as a kind of fruitless circus though - I'm one of the people who always picks female characters because I like women. It brings out the protective part hardwired in my brain where failing results in the character being hurt, and I don't like that happening. I pretty much don't care when the male characters get all beaten up.

Edit: just tacking this one on as it's an interesting musing. Bioshock Infinite has been recently praised for the female supporting character it portrays - and she's certainly a worthy creation. However, the game starts off with you rescuing her from a tower..

[Blackbird]

I actually don't like Elizabeth's portrayal in Bioshock Infinite. Why doesn't DeWitt give her a gun? Everyone and their grandmother would like to capture her, but she can't be trusted to defend herself from her oppressors? Elizabeth relies on DeWitt to kill everyone for her, rather than assist in gaining her own freedom. The story portrays her as a strong character, but it's superficial.

Regarding Sarkeesian, I dislike her because she seems unwilling to engage in dialog with her critics. Commentary is disabled on all of her videos. It conveys an arrogant attitude that her opinions are above criticism. This is not the correct route to equality. Open dialog and frank discussion is.

It also aggravates me that she cherry-picked the most one-sided examples, while ignoring the games which did present women in a positive light. Very few positive role models were cited, even though numerous examples exist.

I also dislike that she received over 150 thousand dollars to produce a show of comparable quality to other programs that are done out-of-pocket by other youtube personalities. Why does she need this much money to point out an obvious, ongoing weakness of the gaming industry? What is all of that money being used for, besides making Sarkeesian wealthy?

[Aliquantic]

It's human nature for men to want to protect women - and it's human nature for women to seek security in men.

I, for one, would like to see hard evidence for that. Big claims require big evidence and all of that before something can be called "human nature" or "hardwired". And I don't think the pop version of evolutionary psychology qualifies as solid evidence...

[Edmond Dantes]

People seem to be getting offended in some vaguely moral way, but it isn't a moral argument about good or bad people and good or bad intentions: it simply IS the meagre role that women have been allowed to sympathize with in these games. It deserves to be noted and criticized--so that it can be changed.

I don't know about "people," but my problem with this argument is that it is objectively wrong. Games with positive females exist. I provided names earlier in this thread.

[Squire Grooktook]

I do find the whole thing fairly entertaining to watch as a kind of fruitless circus though - I'm one of the people who always picks female characters because I like women. It brings out the protective part hardwired in my brain where failing results in the character being hurt, and I don't like that happening. I pretty much don't care when the male characters get all beaten up.

Ironically, the only character I ever had that motivation with was male. Link in Minish Cap. Something about the way he collapses is just so piteous...

I only pick my characters based on gameplay. If game-play differences are miniscule or non-existent, then I'll pick whoever has the best character design, male or female.

I'm not sure that trying to get girls more interested in shooting people and boys more interested in cooking is particularly progressive though

My Dad has loved cooking since he was a kid. My Mom watches a lot of shows and movies about people getting shot or brutally murdered.

You don't have to get anyone interested in anything, there will always be plenty of individuals who like a variety of things outside of the role that society or their brain "hard wires" them to like or dislike. People are unique individuals first, and gender, race, and whatever else comes second.

IDEALISM FTW

Ps: The thing that keeps bugging me about certain posts here, is that people seem to assume that excitement/adrenaline is the only thing that comes out of the action genre, as well as something that's not universal, limited to certain genre's and also to certain people who can enjoy them.

I personally feel that excitement is one of the goals in action games, but unlike other mediums, it relies more on a sense of immersion and vulnerability for the players themselves, which is at odds with the "any game that's not an rpg is a testosterone fueled machismo fantasy about shooting dudes and banging chicks" message that some people here seem to be trying to get across. Action games are about wincing, panicking, and getting your ass kicked till your thoroughly humbled. They're also about a lot of other things, too. Really, there's a lot leverage on what kind of experience you're going for when you create these games.

[system11]

It's human nature for men to want to protect women - and it's human nature for women to seek security in men.

I, for one, would like to see hard evidence for that. Big claims require big evidence and all of that before something can be called "human nature" or "hardwired". And I don't think the pop version of evolutionary psychology qualifies as solid evidence...

I base that opinion on two things:

1) The traditional role of men and women dating back to hunter gatherer days.
2) Experience. I'm old, as such I've had a lot of relationship time. While in one case I felt we were equal in strength (please consider that in this instance to mean overall strength of will, body, competitive spirit and so on), the rest were not. It can be as simple as being asked to open bottles and jars that I *know* shes capable of opening, coming to me to fix the PC when she already knows exactly how to reboot it, always being the one who has to buy tickets when we go somewhere - many many examples. I'm being relied on not because she can't do these things, but because she wants to have me make everything better. It's simplistic but recurring theme, I'd be genuinely curious to know if anyone else with sufficient experience has found this not to be the case on average. Why is it the men go to war? It has *always* been the men who go to war. Seeking security doesn't necessarily mean physical protection either, cast your eye over to Japan where many women have stringent standards about the income prospects of men they marry. How many times do you hear of men worrying about the income of their women when dating?

[Skykid]

But yeah, there's nothing wrong with this video.

Except that's it's a poorly concocted and highly dubious argument that ignores the simple commercial reasoning behind the material.

You can grow up to be a world class, extreme alpha male like madman Ramsay, but Fischer Price aren't going to start marketing tea sets to little boys and shoot their own leg off from the knee down.

System11's point is only asinine if you mis-interpret it: not easily done since he's remained consistent since his first comments.

Why so interested in switching gender classifications? Why is it important to do so? Women's rights, yes, a worthwhile pursuit; gender equality, likewise - but it's perturbing that people don't realise that gender classification is less formed by outside influences as it is from X&Y genetics. The outside influences are just utilising genetic patterns to generate cash flow, and doing a horribly good job of it.

I, for one, would like to see hard evidence for that. Big claims require big evidence and all of that before something can be called "human nature" or "hardwired". And I don't think the pop version of evolutionary psychology qualifies as solid evidence...

How about rape?

"According to a news report on BBC One presented in 12 November 2007, there were 85,000 women raped in the UK in the previous year, equating to about 230 cases every day. The 2006-07 British Crime Survey reports that 1 in every 200 women suffered from rape in that period."

Female on male rape doesn't even have a record, so that's either one seriously misleading stat, or a bona fide psychological/biological trait inherent almost solely in males. The fact of the matter is, copulation is a far more difficult and complex process today than it was when the species were born. The social morals have changed, the base needs and desires not so much.

As for female genetic traits, how about telling the average woman on her wedding day to forget the idea of wearing a Barbie dress and a tiara, she's going down the aisle in ripped jeans and a flannel shirt. She'll probably make you swallow the distinctly feminine ring you just presented her. It often seems like a crusade that doesn't appear to have consulted a wider audience - women don't all necessarily want or require a feminist force to redesign the way they find comfort in material things: and it's exactly the same for men, hence the topic of debate. I really find it hard to believe that anyone can find a new Mario game somehow sexist because it doesn't switch out the roles of its plumber protagonists for women. That's asinine, if anything, and just ludicrously unnecessary.

As for more games with respectable female protagonists, sure, I'm all for it. But start your critical action now, not in fucking 1985.

[Squire Grooktook]

As for female genetic traits, how about telling the average woman on her wedding day to forget the idea of wearing a Barbie dress and a tiara, she's going down the aisle in ripped jeans and a flannel shirt. She'll probably make you swallow the distinctly feminine ring you just presented her.

That's not just genetics. If I was a girl, I'd want a pretty dress too.

Just saying.

Also, I really don't get what System11 was talking about it being a male urge to protect woman. Personally, the very idea of putting myself above anyone, male or female, by protecting them with my masculine maleness...well it just doesn't sound appealing to me. I actually feel like I'd be being arrogant and putting myself above someone in taking pleasure from that. I don't want to rely on anyone or be relied on, I want to be equals and to commune with someone.

Buuuuut, that's just me. Everyone's different babe.

[Skykid]

That's not just genetics. If I was a girl, I'd want a pretty dress too.

Just saying.

Unsure how that doesn't completely validate the point.

[Squire Grooktook]

It doesn't invalidate lol. Just saying people like to look attractive, woman look better in some clothes and men look better in some clothes, but that's a matter of fasion and appearance, not genetics. But yeah what you said is of course true.

And calling Mario sexist or Nintendo cowardly or money hungry for not ditching the story (which is more nostalgia's sake and the fact that these characters have long established their personalities) is ridiculous.


*edit*

Also I just want to make clear that I'm not trying to put down System11 for feeling inclined to be protective of woman or anything. I can understand and respect that, I'm just saying not everyone is born or develops that same feeling. I personally just have an abstract distaste for that kind of machismo, at least in myself, though I respect it in others.

[system11]

Also, I really don't get what System11 was talking about it being a male urge to protect woman. Personally, the very idea of putting myself above anyone, male or female, by protecting them with my masculine maleness...well it just doesn't sound appealing to me. I actually feel like I'd be being arrogant and putting myself above someone in taking pleasure from that. I don't want to rely on anyone or be relied on, I want to be equals and to commune with someone.

Not trying to belittle your opinion here - but since I genuinely have no idea, have you ever been in a relationship or had a family you were responsible for?

[Squire Grooktook]

Mostly just the family. I try to help people, but it's more of a "be a good person thing" and my family taught me to be helpful and "do what people ask if it's no skin off your nose" male or female.

My Mom has actually been very sick for a few months now, following an operation. I definitely try to help as much as I humanly can, but like I said it's more of a general "do the right thing" thing (and that I love her and want her to get better) then a gender role or anything (after all, everyone is trying to help).

[Aliquantic]

As for female genetic traits, how about telling the average woman on her wedding day to forget the idea of wearing a Barbie dress and a tiara, she's going down the aisle in ripped jeans and a flannel shirt. She'll probably make you swallow the distinctly feminine ring you just presented her.

I'm not going to touch your other point because I don't feel qualified to, but... how is that genetics still? Is there a "look like a princess" gene? I agree that the average woman would probably desire that, but that sounds like to me like a huge beacon pointing at low standards, shallowness, materialism and similar blights. It's symbols, and frankly none of the women I know who make a decent income on their own will care about any of this crap, compared to dependent women or my older relatives. But that all points at sociology, and the burden of child birth and rearing. And lowest common denominators.

[Skykid]

As for female genetic traits, how about telling the average woman on her wedding day to forget the idea of wearing a Barbie dress and a tiara, she's going down the aisle in ripped jeans and a flannel shirt. She'll probably make you swallow the distinctly feminine ring you just presented her.

I'm not going to touch your other point because I don't feel qualified to, but... how is that genetics still? Is there a "look like a princess" gene? I agree that the average woman would probably desire that, but that sounds like to me like a huge beacon pointing at low standards, shallowness, materialism and similar blights. It's symbols, and frankly none of the women I know who make a decent income on their own will care about any of this crap, compared to dependent women or my older relatives. But that all points at sociology, and the burden of child birth and rearing. And lowest common denominators.

Yes! And genes are the lowest common denominator in the core characteristics of the sexes! We're getting somewhere now.
Okay, hormones and other stuff also: I didn't mean to neglect to mention other contributing animal factors but I spent most of the day writing on the bus.

Drives and desires mostly exist in the subconscious. Men and women try to make themselves attractive to the best of their ability to attract one another. Guys look pretty good in suits, gals in dresses etc. Of course it's not genetics that helps you choose threads, only the desire to look good in the ones you go for.

Genes is probably too thorny a word to describe why we're naturally driven to be one way or another: it's probably more accurate to just say we're a bunch of animals who got pretty smart, but not smart enough to look past magpie materialism as a way of assessing standards. Do I find a lady more attractive in a pair of Doc Martens and a bin liner, or a girly dress and a nice pair of sandals? Is it gender classification if I say the latter? No, it's the same instinct that would see most women making the same choice of their own accord.

EDIT:

I'm not going to touch your other point because I don't feel qualified to

Just to say, you don't need any qualification to assess this one: it's just a statistic that talks about psychological behavioural differences between the sexes. You asked for some kind of evidence, I give you the insatiable male libido and its pitiful extremity: one that's been around since the dawn of time, I'd wager, prior to Coca Cola and Katy Perry.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Is sociology a burden? For sociologists perhaps. They could've finished some other schools after all.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

She thinks Bayonetta's only good point is that she's a "single mom".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbihPTgAql4

[Skykid]

She thinks Bayonetta's only good point is that she's a "single mom".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbihPTgAql4

Look, it's the same shit all over again. Why does she need to put on a sarcastic tone, raise a frown and roll her eyes every time she's describing a component of the game? Her argument would be taken far more seriously if she didn't present it like a pissed off high schooler.

I can't believe Blackoak and MX7 actually consider these clearly sensationalist presentations to harbour some kind of intelligent rhetoric.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sarkeesian came clean one day screaming "I did it for the money and now I'm rich! I'm off to Prada for a handbag and then I'm out for spit roast!"

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Granted, that ad campaign does strike me as a tad creepy and perhaps crosses the bounds of good taste, but it's a huge stretch she makes to link it to people being groped on trains by perverts with no self-control as if it were directly to blame. Which is no surprise honestly, given Anita's history of blatant exaggeration or outright lying in order to shore up whatever viewpoint she's arguing for.

Bayonetta's nudity or lack thereof in game is very clearly her choice, the whole game constantly drives home the point that she's the one in charge of shit, including her own sexuality.

[Skykid]

3:00

"This interactive ad campaign takes objectifying women's bodies to a whole new level, by asking people to actively participate in doing misogyny."

'Doing' misogyny?

I've listened to it six times and I'm sure that's what she says.

...

Money not spent on drafting a second script then. Seriously, the little credibility she had left took a gut punch in a side alley outside an auto shop when she dropped that one.

[RGC]

.

[louisg]

I can't believe Blackoak and MX7 actually consider these clearly sensationalist presentations to harbour some kind of intelligent rhetoric.

After reading the comments, I feel like I don't even need to watch this to know how it is. The Internet is like this horrible righteous-indignation ego-mastubation machine. There's a lot of really shitty pop pseudo-intellectual stuff out there that's obviously just written by someone just in Outrage Mode, not Let's Convince People We Might Disagree With And Get Shit Done Mode.

[Hagane]

All the "natural" female behaviors Skykid and system11 mention come in fact from social pressure and indoctrination. Women aren't predestined by their genes to be subservient to men, do housework and be materialistic airhead parasites; they are taught to be that way since they are little by the games they play and their social environment. If all the toys you get prepare you for birthing and housework and society enforces that living off a wealthy husband and being a children factory is preferable over a career and economic independence, women are mostly going to be subservient.

But since we know there are also lots of independent, intelligent women who can perform as well as men in most fields (anything where physical strength isn't involved, basically) and there's no reason they should be "protected" by men, we should realize that sort of thinking is bullshit and harmful. Not that different from the reasoning that left women out of education in the past.

[mesh control]

2) Experience. I'm old, as such I've had a lot of relationship time.

This is where everyone should have begun ignoring system11's opinions.

[Bananamatic]

this is what I think about this