Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Talk about what you are playing now or join in with one of our forum games.
User avatar
Metcarfre
Posts: 13676
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
First Video: Not Applicable
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Metcarfre » 09 Oct 2013, 21:26

*clap-clap*
*
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby korvys » 09 Oct 2013, 21:27

phlip, you have no idea how much I love you right now.
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io
User avatar
JackSlack
Posts: 4572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 19:46
First Video: ENN, but I forget which.
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby JackSlack » 09 Oct 2013, 21:50

Approval.gif
mariomario42
Posts: 177
Joined: 03 Jun 2013, 13:35
First Video: Omnilingual

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby mariomario42 » 10 Oct 2013, 07:24

Oh man.

When the majority of games are FPS or something adventure related, it makes sense that they are male by default because this is what history has been. I'm not talking about gaming history, I'm talking about the real thing. I can already hear the "but FPS set in the future have no reason for that!", but when the enemies are all or mostly male, the default, or to say the more likely person in the situation to be, is male as well.

Give a man a fish, and he'll be fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop making games friggin' Damsel escuse-plots all the goddamn time. Or something.


Eating is a need, those are wants. This whole thread has been assumptions that there is this Illuminati level war again women; that every decision a game developer makes has some deep rooted reason, even if it just cosmetic, as choosing a character to be male or female. You know what I want? I want to see a future game with 50/50 male/female soldier fodder that I mercilessly kill. Maybe it would lower my total male/female kills in game from 99.99% to 99.9%. I could easily assume that game developers are making a statement that men are just gun fodder, nothing more and pretty much useless, but that's insane. However, that applies to this whole conversation. Too many damn assumptions for what people are trying to do while the only thing are they are doing is making a game.

In a game with 50/50 enemies it makes sense that the character is equally chance being male or female, but that's not what we deal with.

I know that this got away from the point a bit and brought up some different ones, but it needed to be said.

also
privilege-blindness


hahaha
User avatar
Metcarfre
Posts: 13676
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
First Video: Not Applicable
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Metcarfre » 10 Oct 2013, 08:35

This whole thread has been assumptions that there is this Illuminati level war again women


No one has made that claim, and if that's what you've inferred, you're either not reading what people are writing, or simply blind to the context of how they're writing it.

privilege-blindness



hahaha


...Which makes this statement so funny-slash-infuriating-slash-disappointing.
*
mariomario42
Posts: 177
Joined: 03 Jun 2013, 13:35
First Video: Omnilingual

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby mariomario42 » 10 Oct 2013, 10:45

Metcarfre wrote:
This whole thread has been assumptions that there is this Illuminati level war again women


No one has made that claim, and if that's what you've inferred, you're either not reading what people are writing, or simply blind to the context of how they're writing it.


While I was exaggerating to make a point there, people have been making assumptions about all this. That's the point I wanted to make in the paragraph. It is easier to focus on one small thing and ignore the rest, I'll give ya that.

privilege-blindness



hahaha


...Which makes this statement so funny-slash-infuriating-slash-disappointing.


This is like calling someone pro choice "anti life". You're not racist/sexist, you're just pointing all the things they have that you don't! Oh, that also means I can treat them however I want because they are all better off anyway, and they're all the same.

I'll make that clearer. With racism, you assume a race has certain characteristics, which are negative, while with privilege, you assume a race has certain characteristics, which are beneficial. The truth is, they are both racist since the actual definition is just "assuming a race has certain characteristics". I kept it as characteristics since it can be a variety of things, but we all know what it can mean.

That's why it's laughable when people throw around privilege.
User avatar
Metcarfre
Posts: 13676
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
First Video: Not Applicable
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Metcarfre » 10 Oct 2013, 10:47

No, that's not what people mean when they say it.
*
User avatar
Duckay
Posts: 3706
Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 00:57
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Duckay » 10 Oct 2013, 10:59

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been doing my best not to assume any kind of ill-will in this. The observation that this is a trend that both originates from and reinforces negative societal views on women (or whatever group you are focusing on). This is not something done deliberately 99% of the time, but it remains a trend.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the idea of a 50/50 split between male and female opponents/victims/whatever the appropriate term is as though you're expecting people to disagree. Perhaps I am misreading your tone, but that's how it came across to me. If the future of video games was a 50/50 split between male and female protagonists and male and female adversaries, I for one would be all for that.
mariomario42
Posts: 177
Joined: 03 Jun 2013, 13:35
First Video: Omnilingual

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby mariomario42 » 10 Oct 2013, 11:10

Duckay wrote:I can't speak for anyone else, but I have been doing my best not to assume any kind of ill-will in this. The observation that this is a trend that both originates from and reinforces negative societal views on women (or whatever group you are focusing on). This is not something done deliberately 99% of the time, but it remains a trend.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the idea of a 50/50 split between male and female opponents/victims/whatever the appropriate term is as though you're expecting people to disagree. Perhaps I am misreading your tone, but that's how it came across to me. If the future of video games was a 50/50 split between male and female protagonists and male and female adversaries, I for one would be all for that.


The assumption comes from that it reinforces negative societal views on women. And I'd call it a big on that.

Oh, and I'm glad you're not disagreeing with that, that's not what I was trying to make with it. I was talking about applying what I saw with assumptions made in females in video games to men. If player characters are still mostly male in a situation like that, then I see a problem. But there's a lot of "why can't this character be _____?", and they completely ignore the world that was build and focus on the world we live in.
User avatar
Duckay
Posts: 3706
Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 00:57
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Duckay » 10 Oct 2013, 11:50

For clarification, are you arguing that these aren't existing negative views of women, or that video games like this don't perpetuate them?
mariomario42
Posts: 177
Joined: 03 Jun 2013, 13:35
First Video: Omnilingual

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby mariomario42 » 10 Oct 2013, 12:28

Duckay wrote:For clarification, are you arguing that these aren't existing negative views of women, or that video games like this don't perpetuate them?


For this discussion and to say black or white here, I am saying video games don't perpetuate them. It seems to deal with people seeing a character, and judging their place in the game by them being female, while that's way down the list. Something like I argued before, like being the character's love interest is far more important that a character's sex.

Character needs motive to go on mission -> need love interest -> character is straight male -> person to save is female

not

Character needs motive to go on mission -> female person to save -> can't help self and needs saving -> probably love interest
User avatar
Duckay
Posts: 3706
Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 00:57
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Duckay » 10 Oct 2013, 12:40

I want to reiterate, no one (or, at least, no one in this thread) is arguing that it is done maliciously, or even deliberately. Still, regardless of what the logic behind it is, the end result is that media (particularly, but not exclusively, video games) is saturated with the same kind of plot with the same kind of female character.

May I ask, if you do not believe that perpetuates (though, emphatically, is not solely responsible for) the social idea that women are weak and need a man, then what does?
User avatar
MattAn
Posts: 1233
Joined: 15 Sep 2009, 13:07
First Video: You're Kidding
Location: Perth, Ausphailia
Contact:

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby MattAn » 10 Oct 2013, 18:04

phlip wrote:It's not a binary, for which the only two choices are "Damsel plots everywhere" and "Damsel plots nowhere". If you were to say "I think people driving 200mph through city streets are a problem" and I respond "What, so all cars should be stationary? Is that really what you're saying?" then you'd be entirely within your rights to say I was misrepresenting your argument.
And if anyone here actually said the second half of that contradiction, maybe you'd have a point. But, again, that's not what we're fucking saying.

I have no idea where you're going with this whole example. I've read these paragraphs several times, and I don't see any actual points. Like... what is the point of the whole "my father's wife is a cook" anecdote? It doesn't go anywhere. You honestly seem to be missing a few sentences in the middle there. Maybe I'm just misreading it.

As for the second half, I can't tell if your point is "we should be focusing on supermodels starving themselves instead of women in videogames because that's a bigger issue", or "we shouldn't care about supermodels starving themselves or women in videogames because who are we to tell them what to do?" or even "telling game devs to include more women is like telling supermodels to starve themselves". Or something else entirely. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.

Duckay wrote:I want to reiterate, no one (or, at least, no one in this thread) is arguing that it is done maliciously, or even deliberately. Still, regardless of what the logic behind it is, the end result is that media (particularly, but not exclusively, video games) is saturated with the same kind of plot with the same kind of female character.

...Then stop fucking contradicting yourselves. Seriously. It's incredibly confusing. One minute you're saying "We're not saying it's malicious or anything!" but then instantly turn around and berate its existence and say there needs to be less of it. It's a MASSIVE contradiction. Make up your minds. Because each and every time, you're all going from "We don't want it completely gone!" to over-exaggerating that a particular plot device is apparently "saturated" and therefore bad. There are extremes on BOTH sides, and it's why I consistently end up telling both sides they're being fucking ridiculous.

It's quotes like this;
More people should make games that have real female characters, which avoid Damsel plots, etc, etc. Encourage actual game devs to make more games like that, then that would be great. Hmm, so how could I do that. Well, mostly when a problematic thing is made it's not out of malice or hatred, but just out of ignorance and privilege-blindness...

Give a man a fish, and he'll be fed for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll stop making games friggin' Damsel escuse-plots all the goddamn time. Or something.


Ignorance and privilege-blindness. Assuming that it's only males making games "like this". Berating the existence of said plot device. Sure does sound like subtly saying "This is bad and should NOT happen! Change it completely! I'll continue complaining as long as any games do it!" It's that continual argument that is most likely to just have people ignore your supposed complaint and tell you to fuck off. It's like saying "I don't want this thing completely gone, but here's how awful this trope is so if you could stop using it entirely, that would be peachy." Therefore, within one sentence, it's gone from "How's about we minimize it a bit, hey?" to "Fuck all y'all who DARE to use it!"
And yet again, questioning me for adding various anecdotes or slightly unrelated information and assuming that it immediately applies to this specific issue. I was adding comparisons, showing how this whole "Damsel in Distress" thing is not as "factual" as most seem to think. It's entirely subjective. It's going to mean one thing to one person and a completely different thing to another person. Funny how the term subjective works! Women have distanced themselves from other women due to the negative implications made by feminism. Sure, there's multiple forms of feminism, but when they're all talking under one banner? It's rather hard to take any of it seriously, because so much is exaggerated nonsense..

As for the anecdote thing, phlip. You absolutely misread it. Dave's father brought a girlfriend (the woman he was cheating with) home to dinner and his wife cooked the meal, not knowing she was actually a "girlfriend". The girlfriend was openly flirting with his father and it wasn't made fully obvious until during the meal. My point is that going on some tirade about all women are oppressed is over-exaggerating when there are also women who use that as an advantage.

I've stated several times that Anita is riding on the controversy ticket, rather than doing anything actually worthwhile. She isn't going to get anywhere with her attitude and the way she delivers things.

As I've also stated several damn times, and similar to what mariomario42 said;

mariomario42 wrote:Character needs motive to go on mission -> need love interest -> character is straight male -> person to save is female

not

Character needs motive to go on mission -> female person to save -> can't help self and needs saving -> probably love interest


Context. Means. Everything. Content is entirely subjective, and if anything, it's the side (if there HAS to be sides in this fucking thing..) that's complaining about the plot devices that is taking it too far. The people complaining about it are the ones making the links and assumptions that clearly it's about gender, when usually, in a lot of games, gender has nothing to do with it. The gender argument is only being forced upon by the people complaining.

Would the game be any different if a male character was saving a gay male love interest (or a female saving a lesbian female love interest)? No. The person is a love interest, someone the protagonist (and in essence, the player) should be CARING about. It's not just a means to an end. It's a motivation because you should WANT to protect the person you care about. To me, that's more a matter of love than "I must get back my prize!" Nothing to do with a gender being weak or "requiring the other gender".

Example; FFXIII again. Snow wasn't saving Serah because he's the man and has to save the woman. Serah is his fiancée. He loves her. She attempted to leave everyone (including her own sister), just because she was now essentially (and what turned out to later be shown as false anyway) an "enemy of the state", enemy to every one of her friends and loved ones. Snow didn't care, that meant nothing, what mattered was Serah was still Serah. If it meant he died too, simply for being involved? Doesn't matter, Serah was first priority, not for her gender, but for their relationship with each other.

There's plenty of examples where women also actually like that safety net/support. Again, entirely subjective. Something that's also often neglected to be mentioned (usually because of this whole "privilege-blindness" bullshit..) is that men also have society's expectations made of them, "what it means to be a REAL man". In no way am I saying that men's rights crap either, but to be fair, there's assumptions made of men being the outdoors/fixers/mechanic or whatever.. I've been told by other men that I'm not "manly" enough. So.. I guess that doesn't matter though, does it? I must remember that men don't have any issues (including but not limited to, body, etc), women are the only minority. I also need to remember that apparently the arseholes of the world are instantly the majority vote and literally everyone is at fault, because gender.

If anyone's making negative assumptions about anything, it's those who are complaining.

Now, there are legitimately problematic/repetitive games which are not the same as the above description. Some games, sadly, DO imply a "women can't save themselves" mentality. But they aren't all alike. Throwing them all into one box and claiming "SO MANY EXAMPLES" is just straight up bullshit. It's a major over-exaggeration. The only people making any of this about gender are seemingly just the people who think Anita's word is gospel truth (it isn't).

May I ask, if you do not believe that perpetuates (though, emphatically, is not solely responsible for) the social idea that women are weak and need a man, then what does?

This is quite an assumption.. And to imply that clearly everyone is affected by it. If people make that link (as in, if someone is intentionally sexist and assume women are weak and "need a man"), then that's their own decision they made. Sure, a completely stupid one, but they made their own mind up, with their own brain. That's THEIR fault. Humans can make up their own minds, there are plenty of awful people who assume stupid things.
As a counter, Geek Bomb. All female Australian gaming/pop culture group led my Maude Garrett (actually a friend of mine as well). They're extremely popular and people enjoy their work because they're talented, NOT because they're women.
Image
User avatar
korvys
Posts: 2112
Joined: 29 Apr 2013, 14:48
First Video: Zero Punctuation: X-Blades/Halo Wars
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby korvys » 10 Oct 2013, 18:35

I have nothing to say on the rest, currently, but this:
One minute you're saying "We're not saying it's malicious or anything!" but then instantly turn around and berate its existence and say there needs to be less of it. It's a MASSIVE contradiction.

No it's not. Saying that there should be less of something, or even that it should not exist does not imply maliciousness.

One is making a statement of desire, on the part of the speaker ("I want to chop down this tree because it blocks my view"), and the other is making a statement on the perceived motive of the thing/creator ("I believe this tree intention grew in my way")

It is entirely consistent to say that someone has done something with good intentions, but also that they should not have done the thing at all.
"Why does Sonic chill like dawgs?" - Graham
"Causation. Still a leading cause of correlation"" - Oglaf

Google+ / Twitter / Mastodon
keybase.io
User avatar
phlip
Posts: 1789
Joined: 24 Apr 2010, 17:48
First Video: Eternal Sonata (Unskippable)
Location: Australia

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby phlip » 10 Oct 2013, 18:41

MattAn wrote:...Then stop fucking contradicting yourselves. Seriously. It's incredibly confusing. One minute you're saying "We're not saying it's malicious or anything!" but then instantly turn around and berate its existence and say there needs to be less of it. It's a MASSIVE contradiction. Make up your minds.

... How on earth is that a contradiction? It's possible to claim both "this is a bad thing, it should happen less" and "the people who are doing this thing aren't doing it intentionally to be evil". It's possible to do something problematic by accident, or out of ignorance. And when that happens, it's possible to point out that it's (a) happening, (b) bad, and (c) not intentional. This is in no way a contradiction, and I'm thoroughly confused by any point of view that thinks it might be.

MattAn wrote:Assuming that it's only males making games "like this".

Citation needed. I have never made this claim. Ever. Please quote the place where I claim this. Put up, or shut up.

MattAn wrote:Berating the existence of said plot device.

Berating the prevalence of said plot device. For fuck's sake.

It's shit like this... I'll say "Words words words. Clarifying words that say I don't mean thing X, that take up more time than the original words." and you'll respond "You say you don't mean X, but then if I misread your other words I can make it sound like you're saying X! Stop contradicting yourself! This is more evidence for my claim that you're all arguing in bad faith!"

I still have no idea how you manage to quote me saying "More people should make games that don't do X" and then claim I'm saying "X is evil and should be eradicated by fire!"

MattAn wrote:As for the anecdote thing, phlip. You absolutely misread it. Dave's father brought a girlfriend (the woman he was cheating with) home to dinner and his wife cooked the meal, not knowing she was actually a "girlfriend". The girlfriend was openly flirting with his father and it wasn't made fully obvious until during the meal. My point is that going on some tirade about all women are oppressed is over-exaggerating when there are also women who use that as an advantage.

Ah, I see. I completely failed to parse the part where you said that the wife cooked for the girlfriend. I thought it was saying she cooked, in general terms. Anyway.

So... your anecdote of times that women are douchebags sometimes is evidence of... what? That some strawman version of feminism that claims all men are evil and all women are saints is wrong? Colour me shocked. Maybe next time you find someone who says anything remotely close to that, you can bring out that anecode and have it be at all relevant in the slightest.

MattAn wrote:I've stated several times that Anita is riding on the controversy ticket, rather than doing anything actually worthwhile. She isn't going to get anywhere with her attitude and the way she delivers things.

Yes, you've stated this. I have never seen you do anything to back this up.

MattAn wrote:Context. Means. Everything.

And, again, there's more than one level of context, and you're focusing on one while ignoring the other.

MattAn wrote:Would the game be any different if a male character was saving a gay male love interest (or a female saving a lesbian female love interest)? No. The person is a love interest, someone the protagonist (and in essence, the player) should be CARING about. It's not just a means to an end. It's a motivation because you should WANT to protect the person you care about.

Exactly. It would be fundamentally the same if the genders were swapped. But it so rarely ever is swapped. Which puts the lie to the claim that it has to be a male protagonist and a female love interest, because that's what makes sense in the context of the story. Because if that were the primary reason, there'd also be just as many examples where it makes sense in the context of the story to have a female protagonist and a male love interest. And that so very rarely happens.

It's an anomaly, and "context context story etc" doesn't explain its existence.
While no one overhear you quickly tell me not cow cow.
but how about watch phone?

[he/him/his]
User avatar
AdmiralMemo
Posts: 7342
Joined: 27 Nov 2011, 18:29
First Video: Unskippable: Eternal Sonata
Location: Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Contact:

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby AdmiralMemo » 10 Oct 2013, 18:58

Image
Graham wrote:The point is: Nyeh nyeh nyeh. I'm an old man.
LRRcast wrote:Paul: That does not answer that question at all.
James: Who cares about that question? That's a good answer.

Image
User avatar
Bebop Man
Posts: 4465
Joined: 22 May 2013, 22:55
First Video: The Pirate Video
Location: The Black Lodge

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Bebop Man » 10 Oct 2013, 19:15

I love we don't get modded for reaction-posting. I've got so many warnings for that at The Escapist.
Image
User avatar
MattAn
Posts: 1233
Joined: 15 Sep 2009, 13:07
First Video: You're Kidding
Location: Perth, Ausphailia
Contact:

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby MattAn » 10 Oct 2013, 19:23

phlip wrote:Exactly. It would be fundamentally the same if the genders were swapped. But it so rarely ever is swapped. Which puts the lie to the claim that it has to be a male protagonist and a female love interest, because that's what makes sense in the context of the story. Because if that were the primary reason, there'd also be just as many examples where it makes sense in the context of the story to have a female protagonist and a male love interest. And that so very rarely happens.

It's an anomaly, and "context context story etc" doesn't explain its existence.

Yep, I'm just going to respond to that with an abundant "...So?"

Why the hell does it matter what the genders are? This is why I'm saying there's constant contradictions! Several times in this thread, you, and others, have stated "It's not bad enough to have to be eradicated completely forever" but then you (and others) go straight into reasons why it is, in fact, horrendously bad and people doing it, knowingly or not, are doing it wrong. It's the attitude. The snide, holier-than-thou behaviour. Anita is the worst about it. You can say the "trope" is not intentionally evil all you like, but when you follow it up with how people are apparently "privilege-blind", etc. It's quite the back-handed insult and generalisation to make.

The majority of the time, the character's gender is totally irrelevant to the creation process of the game. Again with FFXIII, mainly this example in particular, where the character of Fang (before naming or anything, early design) was originally male. The dev team decided they preferred to have even genders in the party (3 male (Snow/Sazh/Hope), 3 female (Lightning/Vanille/Fang), Serah was planned to also be playable, but she ended up moving to FFXIII-2), so the character became Fang. Nobody gave a shit. Because it doesn't matter in the context of the story. A character isn't defined by their gender. Ever. They're defined by their character.

Nobody's ever said it has to be. But I see absolutely no fucking point in making a change in genders, purely because gender. That's. So. Fucking. Arbitrary. Making the character female instead of male purely for the sake of "SHOULD BE FEMALE".. Isn't the best reasoning. Demanding to make an arbitrary change is rather insane.

Hell, I've wanted a main series Assassin's Creed game starring a female Assassin. Hasn't happened. Liberation's Aveline was a side-game to Connor's AC3. There's already been that female Chinese Assassin that Ezio mentored in the short film "Embers", having a game starring her would be neat-o, but nobody ever gets exactly what they want (as Conan O'Brien states on his last Tonight Show http://vimeo.com/8939365)..

I just find the motive absurd.. As I've said, if people want the ratio to be less of a gap, make a game yourself and be the change you want to see in the world. Instead of complaining about petty crap, FIX IT. Find the market for it yourself. Funny how there's that whole Kickstarter thing for game concepts!

After each post, it just makes me think even more that it's such an arbitrary issue.. I don't give a shit what the character's genders are, make them good characters in general. I don't play a lot of Western RPGs (like Mass Effect, etc) because literally all the male leads look the same. I agree that so many AAA game dev studios "play it safe" and have almost identical lead characters.. But sadly, that's what dudebros buy. JRPGs, on the other hand, for the most part have equally diverse characters of either gender. Final Fantasy V's Bartz was often considered to be gay (not a detriment, mind you, because that wasn't the "key" to him being a good character), Final Fantasy VI's Terra (Tina) and Celes (Ceres) were both powerful women.

And here's the biggest kicker. Tetsuya Nomura (the lead director of Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy VII and the upcoming Final Fantasy XV) was also FFXIII's (and pretty much all the others post-VII) character designer. His design brief for Lightning? More or less, a female equivalent of FFVII's Cloud Strife, a character Nomura designed to be.. Well, his ideal version of himself. Tifa was his ideal partner (so he was equally superficial about both of them)..

..And people apparently hated Lightning.. Mostly FFVII fanboys, but I know a lot of people that love her as a character.
Hell, Lara Croft was majorly sexualised. Then she merely became "the female Nathan Drake", even though Croft existed long before Drake, but back then, she was marketed as the sex symbol (not sure if there's much of a difference between sex symbol and sex object.. But I also know plenty of women want to be "sex symbols", so that's difficult to say..) Thankfully, her rebooted 2013 character was really well designed! Baby steps..

The point is, claiming that the designer (intentionally or unintentionally) "perpetuated a supposed stereotype" and therefore, have contributed to the problem.. It's a rather outrageous claim. Sure, anyone can say "I don't like the design of that character", but it does not, in any way, make it factually wrong and bad or even "problematic". That's an individual perception and not at all fact.

And now I want popcorn, because now I've literally lost all my fucks.
Last edited by MattAn on 10 Oct 2013, 19:32, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Duckay
Posts: 3706
Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 00:57
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Duckay » 10 Oct 2013, 19:26

MattAn wrote:...Then stop fucking contradicting yourselves. Seriously. It's incredibly confusing. One minute you're saying "We're not saying it's malicious or anything!" but then instantly turn around and berate its existence and say there needs to be less of it. It's a MASSIVE contradiction. Make up your minds. Because each and every time, you're all going from "We don't want it completely gone!" to over-exaggerating that a particular plot device is apparently "saturated" and therefore bad. There are extremes on BOTH sides, and it's why I consistently end up telling both sides they're being fucking ridiculous.


Yeah, I'm going to agree with korvys and phlip and say that I do not see how what I said was in any way a contradiction. They have both explained why, however, so I won't stay on that subject too long. It is not a contradiction, in my opinion, to say that something should be done less but is not being done deliberately to offend. It is also not a contradiction to say that something should not necessarily be completely gone but also that it should not be this popular in media.

MattAn wrote:It's like saying "I don't want this thing completely gone, but here's how awful this trope is so if you could stop using it entirely, that would be peachy." Therefore, within one sentence, it's gone from "How's about we minimize it a bit, hey?" to "Fuck all y'all who DARE to use it!"

"Here's how awful this trope is in aggregate" isn't remotely like "fuck all y'all who DARE to use it".

MattAn wrote:My point is that going on some tirade about all women are oppressed is over-exaggerating when there are also women who use that as an advantage.

Who has said this?

MattAn wrote:Would the game be any different if a male character was saving a gay male love interest (or a female saving a lesbian female love interest)? No. The person is a love interest, someone the protagonist (and in essence, the player) should be CARING about. It's not just a means to an end. It's a motivation because you should WANT to protect the person you care about. To me, that's more a matter of love than "I must get back my prize!" Nothing to do with a gender being weak or "requiring the other gender".

If that were all it was, men saving women would not be so prevalent in media. Yes, there are some examples of other takes on it, as Anita Sarkeesian pointed out, but if it really wouldn't be any different, we wouldn't keep seeing it play out the same way. And your logic could be used in the other direction: why don't we see variations more often, if it's no different?

MattAn wrote:Something that's also often neglected to be mentioned (usually because of this whole "privilege-blindness" bullshit..) is that men also have society's expectations made of them, "what it means to be a REAL man". In no way am I saying that men's rights crap either, but to be fair, there's assumptions made of men being the outdoors/fixers/mechanic or whatever.. I've been told by other men that I'm not "manly" enough. So.. I guess that doesn't matter though, does it? I must remember that men don't have any issues (including but not limited to, body, etc), women are the only minority. I also need to remember that apparently the arseholes of the world are instantly the majority vote and literally everyone is at fault, because gender.

No one has at any point in this thread said any of that. You are arguing against us by criticizing claims that we have not at any point made.

It is true that no one else has mentioned society's expectations of men, and if I were to hazard a guess as to why, it would be because it was less relevant to Anita Sarkeesian's videos to bring that up. Since you do bring it up, though: yes, many parts of society are toxic to people who do not meet the expectations. This is especially potent when tied with systematic oppression like that which LGBT people, people of non-majority races, and women, among others, face.

MattAn wrote:The only people making any of this about gender are seemingly just the people who think Anita's word is gospel truth (it isn't).

At no point have any of us, to the best of my knowledge, said that Anita speaks gospel truth. In fact, I do have quibbles with some things that she says. I agree with her on the whole, however.

MattAn wrote:As a counter, Geek Bomb. All female Australian gaming/pop culture group led my Maude Garrett (actually a friend of mine as well). They're extremely popular and people enjoy their work because they're talented, NOT because they're women.

Can you explain this, because I'm afraid I don't see the connection?
User avatar
Duckay
Posts: 3706
Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 00:57
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Duckay » 10 Oct 2013, 19:31

MattAn wrote:Several times in this thread, you, and others, have stated "It's not bad enough to have to be eradicated completely forever" but then you (and others) go straight into reasons why it is, in fact, horrendously bad and people doing it, knowingly or not, are doing it wrong. It's the attitude. The snide, holier-than-thou behaviour.


I apologize for coming across as "snide" or "holier-than-thou" in my posts. I can honestly say that both were 100% unintentional and I do not feel that way. I simply disagreed with your points and wished to discuss the issue.
User avatar
Metcarfre
Posts: 13676
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
First Video: Not Applicable
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Metcarfre » 10 Oct 2013, 19:39

My goodness, you all have the patience of Job.
*
User avatar
Bebop Man
Posts: 4465
Joined: 22 May 2013, 22:55
First Video: The Pirate Video
Location: The Black Lodge

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Bebop Man » 10 Oct 2013, 19:43

I'll take an internet flamefest over the death of my child any day, really.
Image
User avatar
Duckay
Posts: 3706
Joined: 05 Jun 2011, 00:57
First Video: Man Cooking
Location: Central Coast, Australia

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Duckay » 10 Oct 2013, 19:46

To be honest, I wasn't even going so far as to think of this as an "internet flamefest".

Have I been coming across much more angry than I really am? I thought we were just debating. I didn't realise I was being "snide" or that this was a "flamefest".
User avatar
Metcarfre
Posts: 13676
Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 13:52
First Video: Not Applicable
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Metcarfre » 10 Oct 2013, 19:49

No, it certainly wasn't you. You've been the very picture of serenity.

Hey, here's a picture of Serenity;
Image
*
User avatar
Bebop Man
Posts: 4465
Joined: 22 May 2013, 22:55
First Video: The Pirate Video
Location: The Black Lodge

Re: Tropes vs Women Ep.2

Postby Bebop Man » 10 Oct 2013, 19:51

Well, not really a flamefest, I just figured it was flashier than "debate".
Image

Return to “Video Games”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests