Tropes vs Women Ep.2

[phlip]

This is exactly why I wanted to avoid this thread like the fucking plague of hate-bashing I predicted it would turn into. I confided in Pika in private because my head was in severe pain and I just couldn't stand any of this.

...At least Pika is being respectful, anyway. :/

I stand by my view that I support *equality*, but the answer is NOT, as Memo has depicted, whatever the fuck is going on here. It's horrendously one-sided, it's an attack.

Thanks for that. I've tried to be respectful to you here, and debate your points fairly. If there's something I've said that you're interpreting as an attack on you, then please point it out, as that's something I would want to fix. But if you just want to write it all off as "attacks" then that's your prerogative too, I guess.

I take exception to the claim that anything I (or anyone else in this thread) have proposed is "hardcore extremist feminism". I've seen hardcore extremist feminism, and this definitely isn't that.

Matt, you also claimed that "literally no one ever has said that", regarding women who "enjoy being the damsel in distress". Bull. Shit. "When will my Romeo/knight in shining armour come rescue me, oh woe is me.." literally the kind of thing I have witnessed being said.

I think you may have misunderstood Matt there:

Plenty of women love the "damsel in distress" thing. I'm neither here nor there on the whole thing, but don't ever make the assumption that it's only males that like/want to play that sort of thing.

Literally no one has ever said that.

Matt isn't saying that no woman has ever said they enjoy the "damsel in distress" trope. The part Matt was responding to was "make the assumption that it's only males that like/want to play that sort of thing" - no-one (possibly hyperbole... but certainly only fringe people and no-one in this thread) has made that assumption.

Anyway, going back to the GQ thing. There seems to be claims being made in this thread that only women have "forced expectations" of themselves in the media? Fuck. Off. Not every male is Channing Tatum, or Brad Pitt, or Justin Timberlake. [...] Men are put on this pedestal of what all men should look like and I fucking despise it.

Again, no-one is claiming that only women have forced expectations like this. We're claiming that primarily women have forced expectations like this. It happens to men, but it happens much more so to women. And feminism aims to eliminate it for both, but must focus on it for women because that's where more of it is.

Also, those expectations that are forced for men? Decided upon by other men, for the most part. Sure, it's not 100%, but a lot more of the "ideal man" is decided on by men than the "ideal woman" is decided on by women. It's not really a parallel... note that the "ideal woman" is mostly based on physical attractiveness, submissiveness, and the like, while the "ideal man" has a physcal attractiveness component too, sure, but it's also things like strength, power, wealth, success... things that men want to imagine themselves having. To use this as evidence of "the wimmins have too much power over men, z0mg misandry, feminism has gone too far" is just ridiculous... even those components of the "ideal man" that are contributed by women, I'd claim that the vast majority of that isn't by feminism.

I find it deeply offensive that I'm immediately thrown off a bridge and labelled an "MRA",

At no point have I called you an MRA, and I don't recall anyone else here doing it either. I think you make a lot of arguments that MRAs also make, and I think a lot of the videos you've linked to in support of your points are made by MRAs, but I haven't applied that label to you. Maybe that's too thin a line, but I make no apologies for it.

I must remember that Feminism is the only, one true way and there is literally zero flaws ever at all remotely to exist anywhere within its own movement. NOPE. NOTHING.

Again with the straw man hyperbole. Feminism isn't above reproach. It's just that the particular arguments in the linked video are silly and easily rebutted. But the existance of a stupid argument that feminism is flawed doesn't mean that a good argument for that claim would also be dismissed.

GirlWritesWhat did not a very good point about earlier years where men were disposable. Literally disposable. "Women and children first, all men can just.. I'unno, shoot themselves or whatever." I don't like it any more than anyone else here, but simply ignoring that it actually did (and probably still does) happen is mind-numbingly stupid.

Right. That was (and is) a bad thing. Which is why feminists are opposed to it. Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because a scenario happens to fall into women's favour that feminists will support it and ignore the inequality. The idea that women are special delicate flowers that need to be protected at all costs is a bad one, one of the major lynchpins that feminism fights against, and "women and children first" is an effect of that.

To be honest, if "Feminism" was less about "It's literally only about women!" as opposed to the "Feminism" I've been more accustomed to thanks to AnyDayHappyDay (from DesertBus chat and my ex-girlfriend..) Which involves LGBT/Queer Theory.

99% of the feminists I've come across in my (relatively limited) travels don't hold the "it's literally only about women!" line... they mostly hold the line that I and others have been saying in this thread - it's bad for both genders, but worse for women, so focusing on women is prudent, but equailty will end with benefits for all. Intersectionality and the rest of it is also a major concern of most feminists I've come across.

Yes, there's the TERFs and their ilk, but as has been pointed out, they're a small fringe component these days that get focused on way more than they deserve.

I'll admit to not being as widly traveled and heavily researched in the field as many others, but I've talked to feminists from a few different spheres (many people on xkcd, people from here, friends-of-friends and friends-of-friends-of-friends on Twitter) and I haven't seen this "it's only about women!" angle you seem to see a lot of. Neither have I seen the "It's this or you suck!" angle, that feminism is some perfect holy unassailable ideal.

[MattAn]

Right. That was (and is) a bad thing. Which is why feminists are opposed to it. Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because a scenario happens to fall into women's favour that feminists will support it and ignore the inequality. The idea that women are special delicate flowers that need to be protected at all costs is a bad one, one of the major lynchpins that feminism fights against, and "women and children first" is an effect of that.

99% of the feminists I've come across in my (relatively limited) travels don't hold the "it's literally only about women!" line... they mostly hold the line that I and others have been saying in this thread - it's bad for both genders, but worse for women, so focusing on women is prudent, but equailty will end with benefits for all. Intersectionality and the rest of it is also a major concern of most feminists I've come across.

Yes, there's the TERFs and their ilk, but as has been pointed out, they're a small fringe component these days that get focused on way more than they deserve.

I'll admit to not being as widly traveled and heavily researched in the field as many others, but I've talked to feminists from a few different spheres (many people on xkcd, people from here, friends-of-friends and friends-of-friends-of-friends on Twitter) and I haven't seen this "it's only about women!" angle you seem to see a lot of. Neither have I seen the "It's this or you suck!" angle, that feminism is some perfect holy unassailable ideal.

I figured I'd focus on this part mostly, because apparently everything else has merely been shrugged off as "That isn't feminism! You're wrong and here is why! Everyone who opposes is wrong!" At least that's what it's coming across as.

No. Feminists are NOT wholly opposed to it, and it is not just "TERFs". There are feminists who don't want equality, they want complete gender reversal, going to extremes. It is a very real thing that is happening, and many of these people are in the media and on TV, etc. Including Australia. Many women still believe "men are disposable". It is not entirely one-sided. Therefore, I stand by what I said. I won't take actual Feminism seriously until the shit is wiped clean away from it. Equality should be the term. Feminism has very negative connotations from it. I've studied things like Semiotics very closely. Signs and symbols are VERY noticeable. Simply shrugging off that "the TERFS and their ilk" are less involved or whatever does not solve any problems affecting the term "Feminist". Hell, there are notable women actively distancing themselves from the word and saying they don't support "Feminism" but they support actual "Equality". To say that isn't a problem is entirely ignorant.
And I'm not referring to "women being delicate flowers". I'm referring to the "disposable men" part. The fact that people ARE perfectly okay with just eradicating men entirely because clearly women are "superior". I'm not kidding. I have heard this argument many times. Not equal, not any and all genders/humans are equal.

We must have had very different experiences, then. But to say that another person's experiences are entirely false because *yours* happened? That's completely ignoring the fact that there ISN'T a standard. There ISN'T a common ground. People call themselves feminists and they're.. Not advocating equality. This is a very real thing that is happening.

A small fringe component means nothing. It's like "we'll ignore it and hopefully it'll go away". No. It's not small, it's still VERY active. Shrugging it off and ignoring it helps no one.

Until that changes, no equality will happen, and as I stated previously, I want nothing to do with it until things change.

I only mentioned Pika because she legitimately wasn't being forceful. She actually understood. Everyone else seems to think that if anyone is not 100% into Feminism, they are an enemy and we must attack as a pack to either make them believe or make them run away. Turns out this time it's the latter, so continue with your merry party.

[phlip]

There are feminists who don't want equality, they want complete gender reversal, going to extremes.

Yes, I understand, they exist. And they can be vocal. And they tend to get more media attention than they deserve by spouting stupid shit. Welcome to every ideological group ever. If you seriously won't consider yourself part of an ideological group until every single member is a reasonable person, then you should look forward to not joining any political party ever, not subscribing to any religious, areligious or antireligious group, not supporting any activist group, not subscribing to any named philosophies... generally being off on your own with no outside references to anchor yourself to. Because I guarantee every single one of these will have some kind of fringe element that you won't want to associate yourself with.

What I'm trying to get across is that in my experience they are very much few and far between, and I'll heavily disagree with any suggestion that the radfem position is common in feminism. I'm not trying to discount your experiences by sharing mine, but I'm trying to make the point that your observances aren't necessarily indicative of the actual population of feminists. Mine aren't either. Maybe there's some survey out there that could give a more objective view, but I haven't seen one. Though, to be fair, I haven't looked for one.

One thing that might cover our differences in view is that you mention "people on media and TV", while I'm more talking about people I've actually interacted with, over forums or Twitter or similar media. I'm not saying that either direction is superior, just pointing it out as a possible cause of our disconnect here.

A small fringe component means nothing. It's like "we'll ignore it and hopefully it'll go away". No. It's not small, it's still VERY active. Shrugging it off and ignoring it helps no one.

Of course, just shrugging them off and ignoring them entirely is the wrong approach. I've seen a number of debates on Twitter between some of the more active feminists I know and certain prominent TERFs, and they can get quite heated. It's certainly the wrong approach to just ignore them and let them continue to do their thing without calling them out on it.

But I think their fringe status is reason to brush them off in a debate that they're not actually a member of, like this one. In a discussion of "third-wave feminism vs TERF", sure, it's a relevant issue, but in a broader discussion of "feminism vs not feminism" I don't think they deserve more than a passing mention.

Everyone else seems to think that if anyone is not 100% into Feminism, they are an enemy and we must attack as a pack to either make them believe or make them run away. Turns out this time it's the latter, so continue with your merry party.

I certainly don't see you as an enemy here, and I was 100% serious when I said that if you see something I'm saying as an attack then I apologise and would love for you to point it out to me, so I can correct my attitude. That's not the impression I want to have here. But my intention is definitely to have a debate with you, not to beat you into submission.

[MattAn]

snip

I take back what I said. Thank you for clarifying and being reasonable. And I apologise for taking a misconceived offence. It's just.. This whole thing is a touchy issue itself. I generally don't like getting involved in them, and it's also why I do tend to stick to my own thing. I don't align myself with any particular ideological group, really. I prefer to stay as neutral as humanly possible, total outside perspective.

And when I was talking before about "male power fantasy", I don't just mean male characters being in situations of adversity, etc. I have literally seen arguments from feminists that *women* in empowering or "overcoming adversity".. Is a male power fantasy. ACTUAL ARGUMENT. Because apparently it might be "too sexy" or something? I don't know. Absolutely no idea. But this is the kind of shit I've had to deal with. I'm just trying to make some sense out of all this nonsense. Throwing "educated book learnin'" and academic words around doesn't help. Talk "average human". Stop being biased towards one particular side and be neutral. How am I the only one that seems to prefer being neutral on the internet?

[G-Cat50]

I think this thread needs a distraction...

PEDANTIC FANBOY ACTIVATE

I find it unfair that in the video she uses both Devil May Cry and Shadow of the Damned in this episode. Yes, I am aware that she dismisses "justification through internal logic" but I'm going to use external logic.

Devil May Cry: Ok this is just silly to incorporate DMC4 as anti-fem (through omission). I've always seen this game series to be nothing but puddle of mud with a dunce-cap stupid. If it's "mis"-anything, it's "misanthropic" because it makes you want to punch everyone in the face. Be it Man, Woman, Child, Dog, Talking Magical Sword (oh yeah this series has "comedy" talking magical swords). To claim that this has anything to do with negative tropes is like blaming the Chunks of the world. It doesn't know what it's doing, it just wanted to look cool in front of everyone else.

Evidence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK6UaPnRYcc Congratulations, you now hate everyone with bone-white hair.

Shadow of the Damned: Ok simply put, this is a game about men being childish. Hell, the main theme of the story in the game is "Penis jokes LOL"


[/Butt hurt]


Anyway to more productive conversation. I'm curious for all sides of this discussion to take a look at an obscure PS2 title called "Michigan: Report from Hell".

This game is a rare example of "second person perspective" control where you are a cameraman in a three-part news team reporting on a weird series of mutations in the city of Michigan, Chicago (yes really). You order the female reporter around to interact with the world in much the same way as you would if you were the main character in the game (go there, open door, attack enemy, etc.) the reporter will do nothing if you don't order her to do anything, even if she is in mortal peril. In fact, the reporter can die with no real detriment to your game play. The current level ends and you start the next one with a new reporter. In fact, you may want the reporter to die if you can frame a better shot out of it, which is the main crux of the game:

Do you want a sexy shot?: Sexy shots are ones that focus in on the physical attributes of the reporter (cleavage, up-skirts, butts, etc.),

Or do you want an action shot?: Action shots are one where reporter's attacking a monster, or visa versa. Or the team in peril or the reporter dying.

There are three endings of the game: either extreme or a more neutral one and the game promotes the concept of "the shot is everything"

Here's my takeaway:

Fem Cons

- Treats women as disposable
+ Possible rebuttal: Yes but it's just to hammer home the fact that you are
detached from the reporter, you are an entity unto yourself.

- Objectifies women, encouraging you to focus on their base, physical attributes
+ Possible rebuttal: Not really. It's giving you the option to. The game, by
design, is asking, without judgment, for you to decide which is
more important? Your co-worker's life or your "killer shot"?

- Shows women to be helpless unless a man commands them
+ Possible rebuttal: While unfortunate, it's more to do with the fact that you're
deciding on the shot composition, it could have been handled
better, yes, but it's more to do with asking the player what
kind of a person they are, and less to do with the portrayal of
the reporters.

I respect almost every LRR forumite's opinion in all of the other boards so I'm really hoping to see you guys tear this one apart

[Metcarfre]

Stop being biased towards one particular side and be neutral. How am I the only one that seems to prefer being neutral on the internet?

What would you consider "being neutral" to look like in this situation?

Because, while I'm not about to snip apart your responses to respond to them as I imagine Matt or Alex is just now, I can plainly see that you and I have fundamental differences in opinion on this subject. Am I beholden to readjust my worldview every time we have a discussion? Or can we respectfully disagree, and see how one another's opposing viewpoints fit or do not fit into each other's perspectives?

If you feel attacked, it's because you hold a series of opinions that are uncommonly held in the microenvironment of this forum. This is a common experience, I assure you. It does behoove you, however, to try not to react emotionally, as otherwise this whole thing spins out of control.

What I would say, though, is while no one has directly called you a "men's rights activist", you definitely appear to hold some or many of the viewpoints that are commonly associated with someone who self-identifies as an MRA. Most tellingly, you continue to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the broad majority of feminist viewpoints actually constitute. This is something the others, particularly Matt, are much more well versed in, so I highly encourage you to consider what he and others are saying at face value, rather than automatically skewing and objecting to their points from your own worldview.

[MattAn]

WORDS

I've really only had experience/knowledge of Devil May Cry series here, so I'll mainly comment on that.

DMC has always been about the gameplay. No more, no less. Silly, over-the-top weapons,. Batshit insane characters. Combat that relies on style/finesse/actual skill, not just mindless button-mashing or broken design (unlike the recent DmC reboot... <_<) The story doesn't *need* to make sense. Hell, there's a scene in DMC4 where Dante literally recites Hamlet with the demon enemy he's *just about to fight*. No context, it's just there.

If there's any DMC game one should take issue with, it's the "reboot", DmC. Throws almost everything DMC built out the window and merely keeps the names from DMC3: Dante's Awakening. Dante smokes, when Dante is strictly a non-smoker, among other things. Women are way more sexualized in DmC than they are in any previous game. The women characters of earlier DMC are somewhat "sexy" maybe, but they're all over-the-top caricatures, not sexualized, just really over-exaggerated.

Now, Shadow of the Damned; it's a Suda51 game. 'Nuff said. Suda51 thrives on making over-the-top sexualized games. Nobody takes any of it seriously. If they do, they're a fucking idiot, because really? No one is sacred. Not on person. It's why stand-up comedians stand by what they say on stage. "Funny" is subjective. You don't have to think something that's said is funny, but that doesn't mean the comedian isn't allowed to say it. Some of the world's best comedians talk about rather "taboo" topics and can get away with it because of the context and how it's written. Often self-deprecating themselves as well.

As for this Michigan: Report from Hell" game. Sure is obscure, because I've never heard of it.. I agree that it's entirely up to the person playing how/what they do. It's why people do some nasty/dumb shit to their Sims in The Sims. It's a game, they're not hurting anyone else.

I'd be more upset with the game if it rewards you for doing the "sexier" shots. That's kind of a dick move. Anything that *rewards* the player for making any off-putting or degrading decisions is dumb, as far as I'm concerned. Again, what counts as "degrading" is a completely different issue, it's subjective. Because certain people, including women (and again, I know of a fair few women] who have spoken out about "if you've got it, flaunt it" and all that..) They're openly "showing it off", and that's their decision. Feminist groups have zero right to dictate how an individual wants to live their life.

You also mention that the player is faceless, they're an executive/director, "second-person perspective".. So your third con about it being a "man telling a woman what to do".. Not really, because a woman may be playing it and be in that player role. Gender irrelevant. And then that brings actual real life careers into it. If a male happens to be the boss of the team, then that's their job. It's no different if a woman were the boss. Gender. Is. Not. Relevant. It's the job title that gives them that position, not their gender.

@Metcarfre; By neutral, I mean keeping personal bias out of it entirely. Quit acting like everything said is absolute fact (which, from what I've been reading from Matt and some others, seems to be the only true option).
One of my biggest flaws (well, I guess it's a flaw) is I take things very personally. I always have. I'm not some impenetrable "manly man men man guy thing" stereotype. I accept that the LRR forum, among the torrent of absolute shit-infested waters that is The Internet, is a much more respectable and healthy community. But there's always moments where it seems to crumble and turn to shit as well.
Just because one or two people happen to hold a few "uncommonly held" opinions in the "microenvironment" that is this forum, that's no grounds to form a pack and launch a malicious "wordy" attack on them. That helps no one and only shows off "HERE'S HOW SMART I AM, YOU GUYS. LOOK AT MY LARGE BRAIN WORDS."

I can hold whatever damn opinions I like and not be associated to any group. I'm an individual. I can make my own mind up. I understand the issues the exist, but there are also aspects of Feminism and certain people that are abusive or abuse that banner that I don't agree with and can't begin to. These are two very major extremes and all these two groups are doing is yelling at each other about how the other is wrong and who is MORE wrong. This. Solves. Nothing.

Minor tangent example; Final Fantasy XIII, again. Sure, there are a group of people who *viciously despise* it. There is also a rather large community of people that adore it, its world and its lore (yet still find and accept flaws within it, it's why many who adored FFXIII hate FFXIII-2, because it retcon's a whole shit-ton of stuff). Neither group is "wrong", nor are they "right" either. They're just opinions. And all they're doing is shouting about who is more right or wrong. Why? Why isn't there a middle ground people can reach and actually work together to find solutions to any possible problem? This is why I stay as neutral as humanly possible. I don't want any bias getting in the way.

One person's view of Mario always saving Princess Peach is also a completely different view from someone else. Neither is right, neither is wrong. There are connotations and denotations for everything. Semiotics and all that. A perceived notion is not always the correct one.

[AlexanderDitto]

AlexanderDitto, I would appreciate not being lumped into the "MRA" crowd for merely having a problem with how mainstream Feminism is literally being. I'm not an arsehole. Pika knows this (somehow?) and she respects the issues I have with it. T'would be nice if others actually saw that instead of immediately going "HE PROTESTS FEMINISM, CLEARLY HE IS THE DEVIL AND WE MUST ALL ASSAULT HIM WITH WORDS." Ugh...

Whoaaaaaa man. I don't know if you're still reading this, but read back through my posts. Nowhere did I call you an MRA! My only posts talking about MRAs was in response to the GQ article Met posted, that has an influx of MRAs in the comments saying some very hateful, stupid things.

What met says is right, though:

Most tellingly, you continue to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the broad majority of feminist viewpoints actually constitute.

If we're talking about apples, and you THINK we're talking about spiders, and you know only a little bit about apples, then... man, this discussion isn't going to go anywhere.

Feminism incredibly difficult to take seriously, because of the dumb in-fighting WITHIN THE MOVEMENT ITSELF. Feminists don't even know what Feminism is because they're all fucking arguing about it (I include male feminists in this too!).

...

I want to support Feminism, but it's so damn hard to when Feminism doesn't even know what Feminism is. Any of you describing it doesn't dictate any more or less truth. It's merely your imagination of it. Other feminists totally disagree with you. So.. Until you all work out what Feminism actually is with yourselves? I want zero part in it.

This happens in virtually every field though. Even cutting-edge theoretical physics has disagreements about what the "right" direction for the field to take is, but it's even more present in progressive movements. Look at Environmentalists: there's LOADS of infighting. There ARE radical environmentalists who think the answer to the environmental problem is to literally wipe humans off the face of the earth. And they work to accomplish this goal! They're called Eco Terrorists, and they're as crazy to environmentalists as most Rad Fems are to feminists. It doesn't mean we should stop trying to, I dunno, save the whales and not poison ourselves off the planet.

Everybody's got opinions. Some of those opinions are crap. Doesn't mean the whole thing is crap. The tough part is sorting through the crap and the infighting and the opinions figuring out where the truth lies. I mean, that's a part of almost any scholarly pursuit.

For example:

Feminist groups have zero right to dictate how an individual wants to live their life.

This is something people struggle with! Because, of course, any individual should have autonomy to look and dress and act how they want, of course! That's a core tenant of most feminist thought, that we should be free from societal expectations of how we should act, and should act instead how we wish to act.

The problem is that the way some people act and dress reinforces or encourages the stereotypes that are already in place, stereotypes that can be harmful or damaging to others who don't act that way.

The solution is to dismantle the stereotypes and the cultural expectations and discourage people from thinking in terms of stereotypes, not to prevent people from acting in a certain way.

---

Let's take an example that is more personal for me: within the gay community, there are individuals who have certain mannerisms that more closely align with the stereotypical version of the gay male that developed in the 70s and 80s. (You'll note that most of these mannerisms could be perceived as "feminine" mannerisms, which ties it back to sexism, but we'll get to that.)

There was a "pushback" within the gay community against people who have these sort of mannerisms, because they reinforce the stereotype of what gay guys must act like. You'll find a lot of gay guys are soured on the idea of gay pride parades, for example, because they think they perpetuate these stereotypes, and it's alienating when you yourself don't conform to these stereotypes, so people don't perceive you as gay. (It's really annoying to have to repeatedly come out to people, take my word for it. )

The solution, of course, is not to stop having gay pride parades, because to a lot of people, acting in that way is an expression of their true selves, and it makes them happy to be able to express themselves freely, it's bullshit to say they shouldn't be able to. The solution is to discourage the idea that a group of people must look or act or dress in a certain way, to work to break down the stereotype.

And that's what feminism works toward. But obviously, people's feelings make this difficult and complicated. It's hard work changing people's minds.

[Metcarfre]

Shit, science practically just is catty infighting.

[AlexanderDitto]

Shit, science practically just is catty infighting.

Yeeeeeep.

But almost everyone's a passive-aggressive introvert so it's much quieter.

[AlexanderDitto]

Now, Shadow of the Damned; it's a Suda51 game. 'Nuff said. Suda51 thrives on making over-the-top sexualized games. Nobody takes any of it seriously. If they do, they're a fucking idiot, because really? No one is sacred. Not on person. It's why stand-up comedians stand by what they say on stage. "Funny" is subjective. You don't have to think something that's said is funny, but that doesn't mean the comedian isn't allowed to say it. Some of the world's best comedians talk about rather "taboo" topics and can get away with it because of the context and how it's written. Often self-deprecating themselves as well.

I've seen this argument a few times in this thread and I think it's worth discussing. Because it's fine, and true, that any individual game or designer can be known for making over-the-top sexualized games.

That doesn't exempt the game from being part of a broader trend. Again: if you plot all these things on a graph, if you zoom in on any one point, in context, you can probably justify each of those points. But if you zoom out, there's still a pattern. It's the pattern that is the problem. That's what we're talking about.

People (not just you, Matt!) get upset and sad when their favorite game is "attacked" in something like Feminist Frequency. I was sad to see Psychonauts included! It's one of my favorite games. But it's not an attack; it's a critique, and it's entirely valid, including for Tim Schafer's Excellent Game Psychonauts. Each of these games follows the trend. Feminist Frequency hasn't done much in the way of deep analysis as to why the trend is so pervasive or persists. But that's not really what it's seeking to do: it's really just seeking to make the viewer AWARE that the trend even exists! Because a lot of people who aren't sensitive to it don't see it.

So while Suda51 can and will continue to make over-the-top sexualized games, it's our job as critical consumers of media to ask questions: why does he make these games? Why are so many people making those games? What is their value? Are we missing out on something even better because the market is saturated with them? How do we "break the mold" in a more dramatic way? What would happen if we do? Etc etc. Lots of interesting questions to be answered!

[MattAn]

AlexanderDitto; thank you for clarifying. That makes a lot more sense, with the contexts you put it in. I genuinely appreciate and apologise for making accusations against you. I guess I just have to learn to deal with it (it being the infighting, etc) but that's the problem. I never know who's "more right" because there's added confusion where everyone's throwing in words that either contradict or dispute another person (who actually agrees with some of the original points)... It's shit like this that gives me headaches, and I just end up wanting to ignore all of it, because there never seems to be solutions, only bickering.

As for your example regarding the gay community (which I should add, you should never HAVE to come out to everyone, society's stereotypical view can, as Persona 4's Kanji Tatsumi says, "Get bent!")

Australia has a thriving gay/lesbian community, many different personalities, and the majority of the country is rather accepting, no matter what (well, except for the conservative political fanatics, but they're everywhere..) I'm a big fan of Australian comedian, Adam Richard, extremely flamboyant and "stereotypically bitchy", but he's always being himself, not aiming to be any stereotype. There's also last year's winner of the rebooted Australian version of "Big Brother" (I can't say I'm a major fan of the show, but it's improving, I guess?), anyway last year's winner, Ben Norris, first gay winner of the nine seasons (apparently it was a big deal or whatever?) and he proposed to his boyfriend (also Ben) on stage at the finale. Australia hasn't made the logical step to legalise gay marriage though, so I don't know how that's happening.. That said, I've also known of a not-sure-how-many portion of the gay community who.. Don't want gay marriage to be legal? I don't know, it's confusing. I never know what to think, and I have no intentions of thinking *for* people either..

[MattAn]

People (not just you, Matt!) get upset and sad when their favorite game is "attacked" in something like Feminist Frequency. I was sad to see Psychonauts included! It's one of my favorite games. But it's not an attack; it's a critique, and it's entirely valid, including for Tim Schafer's Excellent Game Psychonauts. Each of these games follows the trend. Feminist Frequency hasn't done much in the way of deep analysis as to why the trend is so pervasive or persists. But that's not really what it's seeking to do: it's really just seeking to make the viewer AWARE that the trend even exists! Because a lot of people who aren't sensitive to it don't see it.

So while Suda51 can and will continue to make over-the-top sexualized games, it's our job as critical consumers of media to ask questions: why does he make these games? Why are so many people making those games? What is their value? Are we missing out on something even better because the market is saturated with them? How do we "break the mold" in a more dramatic way? What would happen if we do? Etc etc. Lots of interesting questions to be answered!

Actually, this is something I didn't consider, so thanks for elaborating! I'm in no way "against" FemFreq because "she attacked my favourite game!!!!11111oneone!!111" I'm not that stupid (which, granted, you did say it wasn't me you were targeting, jus' sayin' is all! ). I couldn't care less if someone else despises a game I like. That's their choice. It's when they tell me I'm an idiot or moron for liking "that stupid game".. That's when I "don't take that shit, yo". There's a line to cross before it becomes offensive.

Maybe it's just that I don't see/get this "trend" that supposedly exists. To me, they're just games. Sure, I critically analyse 'em like the best of 'em. Hell, I tore the DmC reboot to shreds for a myriad of reasons. I don't care much for Suda's games, but I get why people might like 'em. I guess I don't take games as seriously though? I don't know. If something overly sexist, you're damn sure I complain about it (DmC, again), but this doesn't make me think "the developers must actually support this kind of violence, hatred and stuff!" I don't pry into game developer's private lives.

I do think there's extremes that people go to to try and make it out that so many games have whatever trope.. When it's a bit of a stretch to come to that conclusion. It's one person's opinion (and maybe the same opinion of a few others) of a thing, but to others, that problem may be completely non-existent to them. It's entirely personal and not universal. Because one person has said something, it doesn't make it 100% fact and suddenly that trope exists in it. To that person, there may be a trope, but to others, it's a completely different story. Denotations, connotations and all that. I studied Semiotics at a SAE Qantm College Games Design major early last year. One thing could mean something to one person/a group of people and another thing entirely to others. Nothing is exact. That's all I'm trying to say..

[AlexanderDitto]

AlexanderDitto; thank you for clarifying. That makes a lot more sense, with the contexts you put it in. I genuinely appreciate and apologise for making accusations against you. I guess I just have to learn to deal with it (it being the infighting, etc) but that's the problem. I never know who's "more right" because there's added confusion where everyone's throwing in words that either contradict or dispute another person (who actually agrees with some of the original points)... It's shit like this that gives me headaches, and I just end up wanting to ignore all of it, because there never seems to be solutions, only bickering.

Yeah, no, I didn't want you to get the wrong impression that I was just attacking you. I think we disagree, but there's no reason we can't have a discussion about it.

Debates require sussing out details. Yeah, often times it all gets overwhelming for me too. When that happens I just step back and take a break for a while; you don't have to engage if it's stressing you out.

As for your example regarding the gay community (which I should add, you should never HAVE to come out to everyone, society's stereotypical view can, as Persona 4's Kanji Tatsumi says, "Get bent!")

If you don't, people repeatedly ask you if you have a girlfriend yet. And if you have a boyfriend, just the act of talking about him immediately "outs" you if someone didn't know you were gay. So you either never talk about your personal life, or you end up repeatedly coming out. It's how it is, and will be, until being lgbt isn't a "thing" anymore. Which may never happen.

That said, I've also known of a not-sure-how-many portion of the gay community who.. Don't want gay marriage to be legal? I don't know, it's confusing. I never know what to think, and I have no intentions of thinking *for* people either..

Yeah, there are gay people who don't want gay marriage to be legal, but not for the reason most straight people don't marriage to be legal; some people view marriage as an inherently gendered institution; that is, the cultural customs and norms that come along with marriage are so tied to traditional gender roles that they'd prefer to jettison the concept of marriage altogether, and think that nobody should get married, at least not under the law. Again, that's a bit more of a radical position. But it brings up interesting points as to why we have marriage, what it means to get married with a traditional ceremony, why we even want that, etc. What does it mean when two women walk down the aisle, both in wedding dresses? Or when one of them wears a suit? Or when both of them wear a suit? What does that say about gender roles? Does it encourage them? Break them down?

Regardless, this thread isn't about gay marriage. The only reason I brought up the point was to illustrate that a group of people attempting to be free in their expression can cause harm another group, not because they're out to be mean or whatever, but because their expression feeds into a stereotype or trope. The problem is not the expression, but the trope itself, and people who point out the trope are not necessarily attacking the expression (though some do, incorrectly) but are pointing out the pattern, and why it's harmful.

In analogy: in our discussion, the harmful stereotype is the oversexualization and disempowerment of women. The problem is not the sexualization per se; women should be free to be sexual beings, or not, just as men should be, and as Sarkeesian points out, saying that no narrative should include a woman in peril is not what's being asked for. The problem is how the pervasiveness and repetition of these ideas feeds into the culture of objectifying women, and how that impacts the way we treat women in society. The problem is the trope.

And that's what Feminist Frequency is trying to illustrate: that video games on the whole tend to far and away tend to perpetuate the trope, rather than explore it, or subvert it, and that's going to have an impact on the people playing those games.

[AlexanderDitto]

To that person, there may be a trope, but to others, it's a completely different story. Denotations, connotations and all that. I studied Semiotics at a SAE Qantm College Games Design major early last year. One thing could mean something to one person/a group of people and another thing entirely to others. Nothing is exact. That's all I'm trying to say..

The details may be different, and there are certainly differences in the games, but surely after watching the Feminist Frequency video you can't deny that

1. "Damsel in Distress" is an oft-repeated trope. The very fact that the phrase "damsel in distress" exists in our common lexicon should be evidence of this!

2. That there are certain patterns, like being forced to kill a woman who has been the victim of a horrible mutation to "put her out of her misery," after which she thanks you.

These things do repeat in games, over and over. In a LOT of mainstream games. I don't know how you could deny that. That is a point that I don't really see how there can be disagreement on.

I mean, just consider the fact that in virtually EVERY Mario game for the past 30 years, Princess Peach has been kidnapped... HOW does that keep HAPPENING?! Seriously, holy shit.

[MattAn]

In analogy: in our discussion, the harmful stereotype is the oversexualization and disempowerment of women. The problem is not the sexualization per se; women should be free to be sexual beings, or not, just as men should be, and as Sarkeesian points out, saying that no narrative should include a woman in peril is not what's being asked for. The problem is how the pervasiveness and repetition of these ideas feeds into the culture of objectifying women, and how that impacts the way we treat women in society. The problem is the trope.

And that's what Feminist Frequency is trying to illustrate: that video games on the whole tend to far and away tend to perpetuate the trope, rather than explore it, or subvert it, and that's going to have an impact on the people playing those games.

This does make much more sense. Thank you again for giving it a better context! I mean, I get that it's the stereotype/trope that's "the issue".. But is it really the game designer at fault? Or is it the viewer taking on the negative connotation/denotation of said situation? It's the whole "violent games make people murderous killers" argument. It's kind of.. Not true. If anything, it gives a person who had every intention of committing such a heinous crime, the misguided reasoning to do so, when any actually sane individual can tell the difference between reality and a video game. Violence/sexual content is much heavier in movies because it's real people doing what looks very much like real things. The disappointing part is that games are becoming incredibly realistic and "more like movies", which is more harm than good, in some aspects.

Still, I don't believe it's up to the game designer to "be ultimately sure nothing at all problematic is ever at all in this game ever" (this isn't to say that's what I think you're saying, just society in general), developers/publishers can't dictate who plays/buys their games once they're released. They aren't superhuman, y'know? The wrong kinds of people are going to play them and get the wrong idea. That's their fault, no one else's.

2. That there are certain patterns, like being forced to kill a woman who has been the victim of a horrible mutation to "put her out of her misery," after which she thanks you.

This situation could easily be reversed or happen to anyone. I'm not sure I get the "problem". It's a mutation, it's life-threatening.. So.. Isn't this the most common thing for zombie apocalypses? No matter what, no matter who the person is/was, always aim for the head. That's zombies. I mean, I'm mostly using the Gears of War 2 example here, with Dom's wife, Maria, who is... Severely zombified and corrupted by the Locust. It's an incredibly confronting/powerful scene and injects some rather heavy "feels" to an otherwise dudebro game. Anyway, being a mutation fucking sucks, regardless of gender. Look at the monsters in Parasite Eve/The 3rd Birthday. Aya Brea goes in there with a fucking pistol and clears the area of mutated.. Things. She gets freaked out at particular moments, not because she is a woman and lolwomenwouldtotallyfreakoutyouguys, but literally everyone is fucking petrified, even the soldiers running around. She "dives" into their minds, controls them (as herself) and does their job for them, because they can't. It's examples like this that do show there are games that portray women in a strong, confident way. Joss Whedon does it a lot for his TV shows. He's always asked "Why do you write such strong, powerful female characters?", he has a speech somewhere on YouTube where he answers the question several ways, finishing with "Because you still keep asking that question." Female interviewers have asked him that question. There's very good reason why I don't like the certain Feminist angle that targets men as the sole problem.

And who ever said that the Mario universe has a sense of time? They're platformers. They're usually the exact same format of gameplay. Could there be a gender reversal and have Peach and Daisy in plumber's overalls? Wario and Waluigi be female versions of Mario and Luigi instead of just their "Bizarro-world opposites"? Sure, why the hell not? Peach kicks major arse in Super Smash Bros., so there's definitely alternatives.
I mean, I could throw a "it's a means to an end!" out there, but that would be silly. That said, I highly doubt Shigeru Miyamoto thinks women can't save themselves and such. Mario games are repetitive in gameplay enough (with almost identical levels returning in each offering released), legions of people still buy them. I utilise the "vote with your wallet" approach. I hadn't played a proper Mario game since the SNES games.. I got New Super Mario Bros. 2 for my 3DS. It is literally more of the same. But what's the solution, really? I want results, not just complaining. Peach goes and rescues Mario? There will be feminists who will complain "Why do we have to save some man? Do it himself!" Peach was playable in Super Mario Bros. 2 and she was awesome and SHE FLOATS. Clearly she is the best character, even for that reason alone.

It's in no way being hateful or malicious.. I'm really not sure why it's being made out to be. Other games have done far worse.

[G-Cat50]

Um MattAn, you basically regurgitated my points back to me, I just made them punchier.

Alex,I understand what you're saying about SotD but do not think that I consider hyer reference to it an attack on the game. What I meant by it was that it's an unfortunate association where there are much better examples, ones that are not so nice about the topic in question that weren't brought up. I think SotD knew what it was doing and ramped it up to 11 intentionally to show off how ridiculous and cliché the whole thing is, Much like Beej did with that "robber failing at robbery" LRR sketch a few weeks back.

Also fun fact for all: Michigan: RfH is another Suda 51 game from 2005.

[MattAn]

Um MattAn, you basically regurgitated my points back to me, I just made them punchier.

Also worthy to note I wasn't directing it solely at you, I was merely contributing thoughts of my own. Whether they matched or not, not the issue. Also, fineiwontsupportyourviewanymore. D: So much for backing people up..

[G-Cat50]

Dude, seriously, chill.
This is the root of the problem of the discussion at hand. People seeing the least bit of conflict and taking it as being cornered. This is the cause of conflict on both sides of the extreme. The Rad Fems see any representation of masculinity as an affront to their quest for freedom (Sony Walkperson, indeed) while the MRA group (not to infer you as a member) sees any attempt to shift the focus of the norm as a massive upheaval of society, which is completely unwarranted. All of us, in essence, agreed with your points but asked you to refine them, or shift their focus. That's all and every time you repeat your points in a way that's bordering on the vitriolic. So, really and with no aggression implied, calm down.

[AlexanderDitto]

But is it really the game designer at fault? Or is it the viewer taking on the negative connotation/denotation of said situation?

I don't know how a viewer could be "taking on the negative connotation" that women are always getting kidnapped/murdered and men are always having to save them. There's no "taking on" a negative connotation. Are you saying it's good that women are almost constantly being disempowered in almost ever game? How could that be a good thing?

Still, I don't believe it's up to the game designer to "be ultimately sure nothing at all problematic is ever at all in this game ever" (this isn't to say that's what I think you're saying, just society in general), developers/publishers can't dictate who plays/buys their games once they're released. They aren't superhuman, y'know? The wrong kinds of people are going to play them and get the wrong idea. That's their fault, no one else's.

No. It's up to game designers to think about what they're putting in their games, just like it's up to you to think about what words are coming out of your mouth. Yes, ultimately, game designers (and you) should be able to create (and say) whatever you want. But it's still each of our responsibilities to police what you say. Game developers are not a pandora's box, from which flow all things unchecked. Back to the speech example, if you or I say something stupid, we're responsible for the consequences.

That said, "gamers" are also responsible for buying and encouraging games with this shitty content, so yes, they're responsible too for encouraging the trope too. It's why these sorts of shitty tropes are insidious: humans gravitate toward the familiar, and capitalist society gives them more of what they want, further normalizing it. It's a cycle.

The causal link between these games and bad behaviors may be tenuous, and free speech should be protected, but we should still think about why we are making and encouraging these sorts of games. Are they conducive to the world we want to live in? Why are we saying the things we're saying? We're not babbling idiots. We're smarter than that. Our words (through our art) shape the world we live in.

This situation could easily be reversed or happen to anyone. I'm not sure I get the "problem".

Why does it always happen to women. It's always the wife/daughter/love interest of the male main character who is the "victim," and it's always the male main character who "saves her," usually by killing her.

You don't see how that's a little fucked up? That it's always the same? That violence is almost always the answer? Again, look beyond the specific scenario (zombies or whatever) and see the pattern. What is being telegraphed? There's a woman, she was too weak to defend herself, the man has to rescue her.

Even if the man "fails," and has to kill her to put her out of her misery, he "succeeds" in freeing her soul, or giving her a peaceful death. And we're supposed to feel good about it, since she often literally thanks us for doing it.

It's an incredibly confronting/powerful scene and injects some rather heavy "feels" to an otherwise dudebro game.

I can't speak to the specifics of the game, but it's only "confronting" for Dom, and anybody who identifies with Dom (most media usually trys to encourage you to embody the main character and empathize with them. That's normal.) But, go to the Gears of War wiki and read Maria's page. How many sentences in her wiki article DON'T reference Dom in some way?

Three.

Three sentences. Out of hundreds. All the rest are about her relationship with Dom, or her children with Dom, or Dom rescuing her. It's ridiculous! Maria exists in the narrative primarily to give Dom something to fight for/grieve about. She doesn't have a character of her own. She is "Dom's Wife" first and "Maria Santiago" second.

This happens in game after game after game. Women are "love interests" or "girlfriends" or "wives" or "mothers." Men are soldiers, doctors, gangsters, psychonauts, whatever.

And who ever said that the Mario universe has a sense of time? They're platformers. They're usually the exact same format of gameplay. Could there be a gender reversal and have Peach and Daisy in plumber's overalls? Wario and Waluigi be female versions of Mario and Luigi instead of just their "Bizarro-world opposites"? Sure, why the hell not? Peach kicks major arse in Super Smash Bros., so there's definitely alternatives.

So why haven't they? Why haven't they made the exact game you're describing?

Why, in the only game to star Princess Peach in the last ten years, did the game makers give her not a golf club, or an awesome parasol attack, or a fire dress hem like she has in Smash Bros, but emotion-based powers??? Holy shit, seriously. How can you not see how crazy that is?

Peach goes and rescues Mario? There will be feminists who will complain "Why do we have to save some man? Do it himself!"

You're putting words in imaginary mouths here. I'm asking you: why hasn't Nintendo made the game you just described as a main-stream Mario game?

[Matt]

Everyone Seems to be getting along again, and I don't want to disrupt that, but I want to comment on one thing, because the conclusion seemed out of line with the situation in question.

He's always asked "Why do you write such strong, powerful female characters?", he has a speech somewhere on YouTube where he answers the question several ways, finishing with "Because you still keep asking that question." Female interviewers have asked him that question. There's very good reason why I don't like the certain Feminist angle that targets men as the sole problem.

I would like to clarify here that Joss Whedon's answer meant "as long as strong female characters are so rare compared to strong male characters that their inclusion in a television show warrants questioning I will continue to write them."

The gender of the reporter asking the question is beside the point. The point is that so few shows feature strong female characters that shows which do are considered noteworthy for that fact alone.

So I don't see how you draw the conclusion that feminism argues that men are the sole problem, or how this serves to reinforce that point.

Joss Whedon is well regarded within feminist circles for his writing of strong female characters. He's not perfect (dollhouse) and he's seemingly blind to issues of race (Firefly) but he does a lot better than most writers.

Your line about feminists regarding the sexual bias present in media as a male-only problem represents a straw feminism, and one with very little basis in reality. Yeah, there might be a few some rads that think that way (though, honestly, it's likely that even their perspectives would be considerably more nuanced than just "men bad women good"), but they aren't guiding the conversation in mainstream feminism, let along feminist media criticism.

-m

[MattAn]

Dude, seriously, chill.
This is the root of the problem of the discussion at hand. People seeing the least bit of conflict and taking it as being cornered. This is the cause of conflict on both sides of the extreme. The Rad Fems see any representation of masculinity as an affront to their quest for freedom (Sony Walkperson, indeed) while the MRA group (not to infer you as a member) sees any attempt to shift the focus of the norm as a massive upheaval of society, which is completely unwarranted. All of us, in essence, agreed with your points but asked you to refine them, or shift their focus. That's all and every time you repeat your points in a way that's bordering on the vitriolic. So, really and with no aggression implied, calm down.

You realise I was making a joke, right? Purely a joke. No chilling needed, I was just poking fun. So.. All good, I guess? XD

Anyway, @AlexanderDitto;
I must be playing very different games. Because I am seeing none of this supposed "it's always women being mutated and the man characters kills/saves her". I've literally almost never seen or played such games. No idea what you're even referring to that's apparently "common". So please forgive me for not knowing a damn thing about it..

Your Gears of War knowledge seems to be lacking somewhat.. It's missing context. The game's plot isn't about anything else other than the Locust invasion. There are female soldiers in the squad (more common/shown in Gears 3, but they're definitely mentioned). Maria wasn't a Cog Gear, she was a citizen of the planet they lived on and she was taken with the entire rest of the town. Marcus Fenix also lost his father (MIA), they all had people they were fighting for. Of course Maria's bio is mostly about Dom, there wasn't a major backstory in the game, it wasn't relevant to the actual gameplay, you barely see her until that moment (other than through photos of her) because she's been missing for years. Dom lost the only person he loves dearly. That was in no way intentionally designed to be hateful/neglectful against women. Hell, it was predominantly women who loved that sub-plot.. To them, it certainly wasn't ridiculous. There were also women in rather notable roles in the development of the game, they all have families that they weren't seeing much of because the game development required long, overtime hours. There was no malice. At all.

You may seem to assume that I have an Encyclopaedia Britannica width knowledge of all games to ever exist. As much as I'd like to think I do, I do not. I have absolutely no knowledge of this game where Princess Peach has "emotion-based powers". Granted, that's some fucked up shit, I fully agree. Whichever game it was should have had the kickass Smash Bros. abilities ('cause seriously, she's super powerful, if you master her moves, which friends of mine have and I die horribly D: )

Also, I'm not Nintendo. I can't speak for them. Rest assured, I would play the ever-loving shit out of such a game, were it to be made. Screw the Year of Luigi. Should be Year of Awesome Peach of Awesome. I can't be certain why Nintendo hasn't done such a thing. But I do agree, it would be a nice thing to happen.

And @Matt;
My apologies, I may have misquoted Joss somewhere, or I read/watched a different thing where he answered it differently. He's answered that question many times and given many different/re-worded answers. But fair point all the same!
I do question your issue with Dollhouse though, considering.. He wasn't the sole writer/creator. Eliza Dushku, Jane Espenson (who wrote episodes for Firefly too) were also heavily involved with that show's plot. The male "dolls" were objects as well, it covered some very deep, somewhat dark subjects, but there is a massive following of the show, many of those fans are women. I know this, I'm friends with many of the "Whedonesque" contributors via many Twitter conversations.

And regarding the final point about "straw feminism".. I don't see this "straw" stuff. I've seen a lot of it. Maybe it's much more common in Australia than it is elsewhere, but there's definitely a large group of these people who target men as the sole and only blame and don't allow any man at all to comment on feminism because "it involves women only so stay out!" I'm not kidding, this is happening. The sheer notion that any males in this thread are discussing it would send them into a whirlwind of hatred. I do like how you perceive that "their voice isn't as loud anymore, so they're not really considered to be in the mainstream of feminism anymore". They very much are, which is what has been turning many people away. Hell, certain "notable female celebrities" have openly admitted they want no part in feminist causes due to it still happening.

This is the point. Shrugging it off, assuming that the "radical" or even other splinter feminist groups are "less prominent" now.. Isn't solving anything. They're not "dying out". It's the whole extremes thing again. There's a line before it becomes complaining for the sake of complaining, with little to no actual logical advice to solve such a thing. As we've already covered in this thread, literally wiping out the "problematic" content is simply not going to happen. It's not the games themselves, it's people's perceptions and limits (both good and bad) and finding a common ground. Nothing's going to be perfect. Ever. It's just not going to happen, because there's so much infighting, on top of the bickering with opposing groups. No matter how much game designers or any content creator tries to make a thing more appealing to wider audiences or to make it less "problematic", people will still find issues and complain. It's a never-ending cycle, with zero actual results. It solves nothing. I'm probably insane, but I don't deal with things in halves. I want complete solutions.

[AdmiralMemo]

Yes, I understand, they exist. And they can be vocal. And they tend to get more media attention than they deserve by spouting stupid shit. Welcome to every ideological group ever. If you seriously won't consider yourself part of an ideological group until every single member is a reasonable person, then you should look forward to not joining any political party ever, not subscribing to any religious, areligious or antireligious group, not supporting any activist group, not subscribing to any named philosophies... generally being off on your own with no outside references to anchor yourself to. Because I guarantee every single one of these will have some kind of fringe element that you won't want to associate yourself with.

I have something I go by all the time and tell others to do as well: Never judge any group by the stupidest members of it, because I bet I can find some group you're a member of that has some pretty stupid members.

We're not babbling idiots. We're smarter than that.

I pretty much contest that statement.

People are smart; they can handle it.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

Taken as a group, "we" are not smarter than that.
Edit: I just realized that saying this might make it seem like I'm contradicting myself regarding my previous statement. I'm not sure how to correlate these two opinions. I'm going to wrestle with this one for a while.

It's not the games themselves.

No, it's not the games themselves, but as Miss Sarkeesian mentioned, none of this lives in a vacuum. It's not just games. It's media in general.

I'm probably insane, but I don't deal with things in halves. I want complete solutions.

I used to have that philosophy myself. However, I've changed my opinions since then. Just because a solution isn't perfect doesn't mean it's not better than what's currently there. I used to want complete solutions that fixed everything, and wanted nothing to do with partial fixes. But, what I realized was that in this imperfect world, that's never going to happen, and if we wait for this "perfect solution" to come about, we'll be waiting forever. We fix what we can when we can and keep going. Moving forward slowly is better than standing still, even if what we are striving to do is move forward at top speed.

[MattAn]

We're not babbling idiots. We're smarter than that.

I pretty much contest that statement.

People are smart; they can handle it.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.

Taken as a group, "we" are not smarter than that.

...I love you, AdmiralMemo. I love you SO HARD.

[AlexanderDitto]

I must be playing very different games. Because I am seeing none of this supposed "it's always women being mutated and the man characters kills/saves her". I've literally almost never seen or played such games. No idea what you're even referring to that's apparently "common". So please forgive me for not knowing a damn thing about it..

Wait, hang on... did you watch the Feminist Frequency video?!? Because she enumerates dozens of them. What are you doing in this thread discussing it if you haven't?! Go watch the video!

Your Gears of War knowledge seems to be lacking somewhat... Of course Maria's bio is mostly about Dom, there wasn't a major backstory in the game, it wasn't relevant to the actual gameplay, you barely see her until that moment (other than through photos of her) because she's been missing for years. Dom lost the only person he loves dearly.

That is exactly my point. Maria wasn't relevant to the game EXCEPT to make Dom feel something. She exists not as a human being, not as a character, but as a narrative device. She exists only as a damsel, as an object for the main character to retrieve. Do you understand what I'm saying? That is the trope. It sounds like Maria is not relevant as a woman. It sounds like she is an object. Otherwise, I think she'd have more than, you know, three sentences about her on the Wiki. How the heck are we supposed to care about her otherwise? (EDIT: Admittedly, I have never played this game. I could be completely wrong. Maria could be a fully realized human being. Am I wrong about this? Is she a fleshed out character? Here's a good test: can you tell me anything about her character or her personality that doesn't involve Dom in some way?)

Also, I'm not Nintendo. I can't speak for them. Rest assured, I would play the ever-loving shit out of such a game, were it to be made. Screw the Year of Luigi. Should be Year of Awesome Peach of Awesome. I can't be certain why Nintendo hasn't done such a thing. But I do agree, it would be a nice thing to happen.

Aughblaugh. You're missing my point. Shrugging and saying, "who KNOWS why Nintendo treats Princess Peach like an object whose only purpose is to be rescued by Mario?!? It's an absolute MYSTERY!!!" I'm telling you why. Because it's a trope. Because instead of fleshing out a character and making a cool game, Nintendo would rather rely on the same hacknied stereotype of women being damseled and men having to rescue them, and people eat that shit up, because she's the princess. She's supposed to be kidnapped. She exists for no other reason but to be kidnapped. That's what we're talking about here: that video games are saturated with disempowered women, and that kind of sucks! Do you get my point?

And regarding the final point about "straw feminism".. I don't see this "straw" stuff. I've seen a lot of it. Maybe it's much more common in Australia than it is elsewhere, but there's definitely a large group of these people who target men as the sole and only blame and don't allow any man at all to comment on feminism because "it involves women only so stay out!" I'm not kidding, this is happening. The sheer notion that any males in this thread are discussing it would send them into a whirlwind of hatred.

I'd be really interested in knowing the source for this stuff. Can you point me in the direction of some of the stuff you've seen? Other than some fringe clearly crazy-pants blogs I've stumbled across that nobody reads, I've really not seen much of it.

Are you sure it's not just that certain high-profile men complain about feminists acting in this way, and so you've gotten the impression that they do? Because THAT I've seen a lot of, especially in the main stream. "Feminazi" is a word that has become very popular among certain radio personalities....

I do like how you perceive that "their voice isn't as loud anymore, so they're not really considered to be in the mainstream of feminism anymore". They very much are, which is what has been turning many people away. Hell, certain "notable female celebrities" have openly admitted they want no part in feminist causes due to it still happening.

I think what Matt means is that their voices are not perceived as important to people who are actually acting to advance feminist causes, or people who study feminism in a scholarly fashion.