Tropes vs. Women

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:07 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q

First video is video-game related, haven't seen the others yet.

I'm putting this here because I'm disappointed. I was told Ms. Sarkeesian was some sort of hideous, man-hating goatwoman screaming illogically by the gaming community and that's not what I saw here. Maybe she gets psychotic later (or not).

I don't know why she needed money on kickstarter to do this, but I didn't give her any so I don't care.

Anyway, since this is "the den" and we're kind of famous for profanity-filled political rants, why the shitfuck cockcunt fuckmaster are gamers so fucked in the head about women? I've gotten booted from boards because of my "white knighting" (think about that. Count Arioch does not change his behavior at all and is considered a defender of women on video game forums).

Maxus · Post by **Maxus** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:17 am

Damn if I know. You being considered excessively chivalrous is really sort of scary.
------------------
I've seen guys get pissed off at playing Metroid Prime because they realize Samus Aran is female.

And then, in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer, a guy I was in a lobby with unlocked the female turian class and immediately started complaining that he wished it came with a cloak or something so he could pretend he wasn't playing as a female. While claiming he's not sexist.

However, I am a gamer and I am secure enough in my virility that I just don't care if a person of the female persuasion plays videos games, or if a guy plays a female character, or that a game has a female protagonist/major character.

My response is identical to finding another guy who plays games.

"Cool, played anything good lately?"

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:49 am

People don't know that Samus Aran is a woman yet?

After googling the female turian, I am confused why someone would object. Other then her face doesn't look like it matches the rest of her (a bit too smooth judging from the pics I've seen), she doesn't look particularly femme. Not that it matters largely, how does she play? I read that her rush is buggy and doesn't work sometimes (which matches my experience playing single player; for some reason it just doesn't work in certain spots), and her unique ability is said to be lacking, but I can't see anything broken down into what it actually does so I don't know.

But more importantly, why do video gamers tend to scream so loud about how horrible it is to be a man and how they need to "fight back" to get back "rights" they have "lost". And in response to the video, what they did to Krystal sucks....

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:19 am

It bugs me that Anita Sarkeesian gets so much bogus criticism, because legitimate criticism of her analyses as shallow and obvious are well-deserved. Similarly it bugs me even more that she's somehow become the focus of what movement there is to make the video games industry less absurdly and straightforwardly awful about integration of women, and for all her pretension Sarkeesian does not actually have anything interesting to say on the subject. She waves her hands about the damsel in distress problem and points out that it shows up in a lot of video games, to which my response is "yes, and? That's common knowledge. Did you have something new to say? A solution to propose? An insight into why this happens? No? Then shut up."

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 10:52 am

Yeah, I remember watching them all and thinking a) really shallow simplistic analysis, b) She would use bad examples for things.

I mostly just don't care about her things, but I am sad that someone so very mediocre has to be "leading the charge" so to speak. Quite a criticism on gaming culture that she is though.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:18 am

Rule 19 of the Internet: The more you have something the stronger it gets.

I think that applies to Ms. Sarkeesian. In the fact that I probably never would have heard of her if so many people weren't publicly screaming for her rape. And if someone pisses off such a large number of people I generally assume they have something of value to say. And there is value, but I was hoping part 2 would be her elaborating a bit more and digging beneath the surface.

I would say this would be an excellent high-school social studies project, but as an adult who is funded to do exactly this I would imagine one could expect more of an effort.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:27 am

Yeah, if people complained that "she used Kickstarter to get a bunch of money from making youtube videos" and "she needs to put more research in, there are better examples to use" then they'd have decent points. But the kind of people I've seen screaming about it spend most of the rest of their time masturbating to pictures of guns.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 11:35 am

What disturbs me about sexism and videogames is how far up the chain it seems to go. The fact that you can find sexist imagery in one game or even many games is regrettable but not surprising. It's a form of entertainment, and we probably wouldn't have words for sexist depictions of characters in entertainment if it wasn't common. Even the fact that you get creepy sexist fans setting up creepy sexist groups that call themselves shit like "team rape" or whatever is not especially surprising or interesting by itself. Assholes exist, they read books and watch movies and have favorite TV shows and so on, so we can expect them to play video games too.

The part that I think is really weird is how the heads of the industry think they have to actually pander to these attitudes. It's very strange to me that Remember Me had such a hard time getting a publisher on the grounds that they had a female protagonist. I understand that a considerable majority of games have male protagonists, but why do all of them have to have male protagonists? I didn't think that much of Brave, and there are not a lot of movies that have have female protagonists to point to, but they exist. And to my knowledge no studio has ever come out and said that targeting female audiences is something they want to avoid doing.

-Username17

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:14 pm

They don't. There are plenty of games that have female protagonists and are popular. The problem seems to be that those publishers were idiots.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 12:59 pm

Penny Arcade, which is apparently journalists now, did some digging and games with female protagonists typically dramatically undersell games with male protagonists...And they also receive half the marketing budget. So this was kind of a chicken and egg problem. If the publishers released and properly marketed big-budget games with female protagonists, would they work?

This was a chicken and egg problem, but then Tomb Raider came out, which famously did extremely well despite underperforming against Square's ludicrous sales projections. So, yeah, the publishers are just being idiots, but it's an industry-wide problem. Someone wanted to make a game and multiple studios told him that he needed to switch the protagonist to male before they'd consider it, until finally Capcom took it with the female protagonist.

ckafrica · Post by **ckafrica** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:02 pm

See I prefer female protagonists though for perfectly sexist reasons. If I'm going to spend dozens of hours watching someone traipsing around my screen, I'd prefer it to be something easy on the eyes. Plus I've always found the idea of girls kicking ass to be hot

DragonChild · Post by **DragonChild** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:45 pm

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/vi ... Last-of-Us <- More on what Frank said.

I think it's very telling that one of the most common criticisms I've seen of Tropes vs Women, stemming from a disgusting youtube video is refuse to link, is literally directly lying about things she's said in the past and deliberately misquoting her then acting outraged. The MRA nutjobs have so pathetically non-existent arguments that they have to be dishonest to get anywhere. It's pretty telling.

Shrapnel · Post by **Shrapnel** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:15 pm

I always play female characters when given the chance, for two main reasons:

1. The freedom of choice to be whoever or whatever I want in a video game is something I love.

2. I like boobies.

The second one may not be the best of reasons, but it's the truth.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:39 pm

DragonChild wrote:stemming from a disgusting youtube video is refuse to link,

Then don't bring it up at all. There might genuinely be things not worth the time talking about, but don't make vague accusations and then go out of your way to avoid helping people verify those accusations.

On a similar note, though, there's a thunderf00t video that managed to miss most of the points really hard. And it made me sad, because this airhead is a very easy target and yet her critics are managing to screw it up anyway. Get your act together, guys.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:55 pm

Chamomile wrote: but then Tomb Raider came out

See, that would be a bad example, because of this video.

She's just another garden-variety feminist with an axe to grind (redundant?), who happens to have a public forum for her vapid rants.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:18 pm

When I brought up Tomb Raider I was talking about the actual market reality that a female protagonist is demonstrably capable of selling 3.4 million copies despite insistence in the recent past that female protagonists can't sell games. My comment on Tomb Raider had nothing at all to do with the details of Anita Sarkeesian's idiotic rants because after seeing two or three of them I didn't bother with the rest, as she is clearly not someone who is ever going to actually shed any light or get anything done concerning the problem she is so convinced she is leading a holy crusade against.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:35 pm

Chamomile wrote:When I brought up Tomb Raider I was talking about the actual market reality that a female protagonist is demonstrably capable of selling 3.4 million copies despite insistence in the recent past that female protagonists can't sell games.

I was being facetious.

But I'll forgive it as a failing of the medium.

Anita Sarkeesian's idiotic rants because after seeing two or three of them I didn't bother with the rest, as she is clearly not someone who is ever going to actually shed any light or get anything done concerning the problem she is so convinced she is leading a holy crusade against.

concurred.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:43 pm

I'm annoyed because people have already brought up just about everything I wanted to bring up. Still, in a way I think Sarkeesian's general lack of real teeth and insight makes the fact that internet dudes freaked the fuck out about her all the more poignantly comical. Anyway, feminism obviously takes the most flak in this area, but I'd also like to point out that entitlement gamers feel goes well beyond that narrow sphere. People conflate free speech with freedom from criticism all the time, and it's one of the big reasons that video games face an uphill battle to be taken seriously despite the deep cultural penetration they've achieved. That's in large part because gamers in general are deeply antagonistic towards any analysis more in depth than the TV Tropes treatment because they feel that white male adventure time is constantly under siege and that need to shut down discussion simply isn't very compatible with producing art. I get the feeling that many gamers won't be happy until everything is first required to receive a Tom Clancy seal of approval.

As far as that Sucker Punch criticism clip goes, I agree that it is more of a rant than an argument,* but at the same time I think it must be said that Sucker Punch wasn't very good and the lead up really did have some annoying marketing bullshit going on so I can sympathize with her anyway. I mean, seriously, I don't understand how anyone can call the entire Sucker Punch situation anything but a hot mess. In fairness to Zack Snyder, he personally attempted to dodge the notion that the film itself was empowering to women on several occasions when asked directly in interviews, but he and his cast did it in that chipper and deferential way that PR agents are wont to encourage. After all, one of the first rules of promoting a film is not to appear argumentative even if some reporter asks you a dumb question about how empowering a role is even when the film is ultimately about endurance, victimization and objectification. Which, you know, is fine, conceptually--if it was a better film and less hung up on cheesecake and goofy actions scenes it perhaps could have invited some empathy and that's all many great films really aspire to. But that is a different thing from having themes of empowerment and so it's super annoying when the promotional circus uses female empowerment as a stock defense whenever a film touches on controversial imagery.

*With that said, I do think it's pretty weird that women and feminists in particular seem to be expected to justify all their opinions, preferably with citations and non-feminist sources. Meanwhile, I can routinely post shit like "Bitches be crazy" and it is generally regarded as self-evident.

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:50 pm

Whipstitch wrote: *With that said, I do think it's pretty weird that women and feminists in particular seem to be expected to justify all their opinions, preferably with citations and non-feminist sources. Meanwhile, I can routinely post shit like "Bitches be crazy" and it is generally regarded as self-evident.

2 things:
1) challenging the status quo necessarily requires a higher level of "proof" and maintaining the status quo ;
2) "bitches be crazy" doesn't purport to be trying to further any particular kind of agenda; thus, requires no justification.

Whipstitch · Post by **Whipstitch** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:53 pm

I would be more sympathetic to that if I didn't think the status quo was sorta retarded in a lot of ways.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 6:56 pm

wotmaniac wrote:2) "bitches be crazy" doesn't purport to be trying to further any particular kind of agenda; thus, requires no justification.

wat

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:08 pm

Whipstitch wrote:I would be more sympathetic to that if I didn't think the status quo was sorta retarded in a lot of ways.

well, that would be another thing entirely -- I was merely speaking in terms of practicality.

Whatever wrote:
wotmaniac wrote:2) "bitches be crazy" doesn't purport to be trying to further any particular kind of agenda; thus, requires no justification.
wat

I think you may be reading too deep in to that.
The quoted phrase is simply an expression of mindless frustration, that taken within the context in which it occurs, is actually rather meaningless outside its individual use.
It is by no means some higher-order social commentary.

My overall point was that, within the context of the status quo, assertions that follow quietly along with said status quo aren't actually making any new claim -- thus, justification is unnecessary (again, withing the context of operating within the status quo).

I didn't think I was making any sort of bold claim -- I was simply trying to clarify that which seemed to be confounding Whipstitch.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:13 pm

Whatever wrote:
wotmaniac wrote:2) "bitches be crazy" doesn't purport to be trying to further any particular kind of agenda; thus, requires no justification.
wat

I think the point is that if anyone was seriously advocating for "bitches be crazy" as some kind of actual statement about reality, as opposed to the sort of thing you say that you know is wrong or inaccurate, but you say anyway because of emotion, IE, my ex is a completely worthless shitbag, that people would point out that it is wrong.

If anyone was actually criticizing for example, Tropes v Women using "bitches be crazy" we would be making fun of them worse than her.

(Well, they basically are, but as above, we basically do make fun of them worse, because they deserve it.)

wotmaniac · Post by **wotmaniac** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:20 pm

Kaelik wrote: I think the point is that if anyone was seriously advocating for "bitches be crazy" as some kind of actual statement about reality, as opposed to the sort of thing you say that you know is wrong or inaccurate, but you say anyway because of emotion, IE, my ex is a completely worthless shitbag, that people would point out that it is wrong.

Wow .... thank you, Kaelik.
you never cease to amaze me.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Sun Apr 21, 2013 7:28 pm

Whipstitch wrote:*With that said, I do think it's pretty weird that women and feminists in particular seem to be expected to justify all their opinions, preferably with citations and non-feminist sources. Meanwhile, I can routinely post shit like "Bitches be crazy" and it is generally regarded as self-evident.

While I agree, it's not because I want feminists to receive less scrutiny. I'm very comfortable asking people to justify and support their opinions. I just think this should apply to opinions like "bitches be crazy," too. For the sake of not being a zealous prick I won't usually start a huge argument about it with distant acquaintances, but it's not super uncommon for me to respond to common stereotypes like that with something like "can you conclusively prove that bitches be crazy, and have you considered the alternate theory that shit may be whack, yo?"