Feminism general thread

[hascow]

Cross-posting from the "GamerGate" thread: Are Feminists Taking Over Video Games?

[Duckay]

Is cross-posting between the two threads really necessary? I mean, they're in the same forum and it's largely the same people in both discussions. I don't think it's necessary for us to talk about it in two different places.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, of course.

[Deedles]

When I cross posted it was because I felt it applied to both discussions, but wasn't sure which one most people would find more or less relevant (if either).

[J_S_Bach]

I watched a Feminist Frequency video for the first time today, mostly because I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. My initial response is that I feel that Anita Sarkeesian is making some interesting points that need to be addressed but I don't agree with her means of presentation, not to mention taking footage from other YouTube LPers without properly crediting them. I felt that she was cherry picking her examples and when all was said and done I was reminded of the "violence in video games creates violent youth" argument which has been thoroughly debunked. I don't really see what the big deal about it is.

[JackSlack]

JS Bach:

Presentation wise, fine. I tend to agree that she's very dry. I understand she kills in lectures, but her videos feel flat to me.

The LPer thing; I agree, she should have credited.

Cherry picking: This criticism misses the point. That there are instances where the trope doesn't apply, or that the creators may have attempted to justify the trope, or anything else; doesn't stop the fact that she's very capable of cataloguing this trope over and over and over again. That's her point: She's using the force of repetition to demonstrate the existence of the trope and its pervasiveness.

Videogames affect behaviour: She's pointedly not arguing that. She's arguing that it influences attitudes, which is a very different thing.

[Firbozz]

"If she's cherry-picking, it's because she's in a cherry orchard" -someone whose name I forget.

[J_S_Bach]

JS Bach:

Presentation wise, fine. I tend to agree that she's very dry. I understand she kills in lectures, but her videos feel flat to me.

The LPer thing; I agree, she should have credited.

Cherry picking: This criticism misses the point. That there are instances where the trope doesn't apply, or that the creators may have attempted to justify the trope, or anything else; doesn't stop the fact that she's very capable of cataloguing this trope over and over and over again. That's her point: She's using the force of repetition to demonstrate the existence of the trope and its pervasiveness.

Videogames affect behaviour: She's pointedly not arguing that. She's arguing that it influences attitudes, which is a very different thing.

The reading I got from her video (which was Women as Background Decoration: Part 2 for any wondering) was that she was suggesting these tropes are used maliciously and intentionally and I don't agree with that at all. If anything the reason why these tropes are so prevalent and tired is due to the sheer mass of video games we now have access to. If anything they're used because of creative laziness within the industry.

I find the attitudes versus behaviour argument to be a slippery slope. I remember my old pyschology prof saying something along the lines of 'our behaviours are the externalized expressions of our internalized attitudes'. The definition of attitude I found in my dictionary is "a feeling or way of thinking that affects a person's behaviour". By that definition if what Anita Sarkeesian is suggesting is that our attitudes are being changed by these tropes then our behaviours will change to reflect these attitudes.

[AlexanderDitto]

The reading I got from her video (which was Women as Background Decoration: Part 2 for any wondering) was that she was suggesting these tropes are used maliciously and intentionally and I don't agree with that at all. If anything the reason why these tropes are so prevalent and tired is due to the sheer mass of video games we now have access to. If anything they're used because of creative laziness within the industry.

(Emphasis added)

Can you give an example of a statement or set of statements in the video that lead you to reach the conclusion I bolded? (There's a transcript of the video here if it helps.)

Because my interpretation is almost entirely the opposite; that these problems are systemic, and the trope's overuse stems not from malicious intent on the part of a few nefarious individuals, but from a problem with the system as a whole, the way we think about and contextualize women in society (which, of course, we all play a part in, but not often not thoughtfully or willfully).

[phlip]

Indeed... the reading I get from all her videos is at the very basic level of trying to establish that the prevalence of these tropes exists, and is a bad thing. Not trying to assign blame, very explicitly not trying to say "these games are bad and you're bad for liking them", but just trying to say "these specific tropes are way overused, and that reflects+causes problematic attitudes to women".

From "Damsel in Distress, Part 2":

One of the really insidious things about systemic and institutional sexism, is that most often regressive attitudes and harmful gender stereotypes are maintained and perpetuated unintentionally. Likewise, engaging with these games, is not going to transform players into raging sexists. We typically don't have a 'monkey see, monkey do' direct cause and effect relationship with the media we consume. Cultural influence works in much more subtle and complicated ways.

Or, to quote myself from the other thread:

The primary distinguishing thing that I'm aware of is one is claiming the media is promoting actions, while the other is claiming the media is promoting ideas. A piece of media that portrays, say, violence against women isn't going to directly cause consumers of that media to perform violence against women. But a piece of media that is based on the idea that violence against women is acceptible, especially if you have a lot of varied pieces of media that say it, can help that meme to spread.

The media tends to be a feedback loop in the great echochamber that is "culture"... people believe a thing, so they make media that implicitly assumes a thing to be true, so people who consume the media pick up on the fact that the thing is widely-believed to be true, and become more likely to believe it themselves. All without anyone involved necessarily needing to be consciously aware of the idea in question. Media is both caused by, and the cause of, these ideas (and, indeed, if we generalise further from "media" to "general communication", this is basically the entirety of how ideas spread, and how culture exists).

[J_S_Bach]

"Rape and sexual assault are also frequently used as a sort of narrative currency to try and raise the emotional stakes and heighten the dramatic tension for gamers."
"Scripted events are typically not part of the game’s main storyline, but are instead designed to seem like random chance encounters. They are meant to make the game world appear more alive or unpredictable and therefore more believable."
"It’s meant to paint the gaming environment with a harsh brush, but it ends up doing so on the backs of women’s bodies, casually sacrificing female characters in the name of setting a ruthless narrative tone."

My opinion that Anita Sarkeesian was suggesting that the tropes were being used intentionally began after the preceding statements. And was solidified after the examples of the "Damsels in Distress" portion of AC2 (an example I felt was used unfairly) "If the player gets too close the assailant will slit her throat and run to the next nameless courtesan, take her hostage, murder her,... Then grab another, murder her, grab another and another until the player manages to shoot and kill the perpetrator from a sufficient distance." And the example of Watch_Dogs "If the player reaches the victim within the 10-second intervention window, the woman can be rescued by killing her abuser. However, if the player doesn’t reach her in time, she is murdered and the perpetrator will flee, providing gamers the opportunity to hunt him down.
Tellingly, if the player gets too close to the assault before it occurs, the abuser will be scared off and the player will fail the mission" She implies murder is the only solution and chooses not to mention that those are side quest activities that need to be pursued actively by the player.

I also took umbrage with how she choose to cut her example from The Witcher " 'Some men are troubling my girls. Take care of it and we’ll compensate you… generously.'" Implying that the reward is sex which is not the case at all.

[Firbozz]

She is suggesting they're being used intentionally. In the sense that, when a dev wants to make their game "dark and gritty" or "realistic," the go-to trope is "violence against women/rape."

[J_S_Bach]

Exactly, but I don't agree with that statement. I don't think devs are sitting around in conference rooms saying "we don't have enough violence against women to get across the point that our game world is dark and gritty". I believe that it's a symptom of lazy creativity.

[Deedles]

You do realize that they two don't have to be separate entities? Tropes are, by default, lazy writing.

[J_S_Bach]

That is not true at all.

[Firbozz]

Tropes a literary shorthand. Overuse tropes are cliches, which ARE lazy.

[Deedles]

That is not true at all.

Can't say I agree, but I will correct myself, tropes don't always have to be lazy writing, but often are.

[J_S_Bach]

That is not true at all.

Can't say I agree, but I will correct myself, tropes don't always have to be lazy writing, but often are.

I agree with Firbozz. The overuse of tropes, or cliches, is when it becomes lazy writing.

[Firbozz]

However, when you look at our stable of default tropes, we do find the tropes discussed

[Deedles]

My point is mostly is that you aren't really disagreeing with her. She's saying that the tropes can have a negative effect on our culture, and you're calling them lazy writing, and neither of you would be wrong.

[J_S_Bach]

I thought I had made it fairly clear what the issues I had with Anita Sarkeesian's video that I watched. She clearly is extremely educated in feminist theories and she is making videos on a subject matter that I believe she has a passion for. However, I do not agree with all of her assertions (as I've said above) and feel she is a bit of an alarmist.

I also have an issue with how she deals with those who vocally oppose her. I took a look at the Feminist Frequency twitter account after I watched one of her videos and personally I find it rubs me the wrong way whenever someone uses insults and belittles those who disagree with them. I don't find it's the best way to have a conversation about equality and diversity in games when there are people on both sides who simply through insults back and forth instead of having a discussion.

She has done an excellent job in creating her brand, many people know the name Anita Sarkeesian. I hope that she continues making videos on this subject matter in the hope that it will open up the floor to more productive discussions, much like what we can do here on the LRR forums.

[Deedles]

I have read what you've posted, but I guess I must of misunderstood some of your point because of this post you made;

Exactly, but I don't agree with that statement. I don't think devs are sitting around in conference rooms saying "we don't have enough violence against women to get across the point that our game world is dark and gritty". I believe that it's a symptom of lazy creativity.

Can't really express myself on your point of her insulting those that disagree with her, considering that 'disagree with her' can be anything between someone simply not agreeing, or someone drowning her in death/rape threats. I can only say that in my own personal experience I've not really seen any insult being aimed at anyone who I couldn't understand her saying so towards, even less in her videos (where I don't think I've heard her out-right insult anyone/any group at all).

[J_S_Bach]

I tend to agree with Gabriel Morten's opinions on threats delivered through the internet: they only have as much power as you give them. Obviously it's a different case when someone threatens you and has details about your family or your personal life. But when it's random assholes hiding behind anonymity on the internet usually they're doing it only for the attention. I've received threats on the internet in relation to work I've done and for things about me I cannot change. I found the best course of action was to ignore those people entirely and not give them the satisfaction of a reaction, (I also don't agree with censoring dissenting opinions even if some may be offended, I feel it flies in the face of free speech) but different people deal with emotional stresses in different ways. I understand her reaction but that doesn't mean I agree with how it was handled.

Regarding the tweets, I looked back at the account and I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong. Turns out the tweets I had the most issue with were retweets by @femfreq. Serves me right for reading the page when it was 3 in the morning. However I do not feel that promoting those tweets is helpful to the situation or the discussion at hand.

[Metcarfre]

Everybody saw this re; "threats on the internet aren't real", right?

I think, "oh, it's best to just ignore it" is so, so much easier when people don't have your address and your friends' and familys' adresses, the threats are so non-stop and intense it's impossible to differentiate real threats from empty ones. I mean, I think she published one the other day that said "hey I just got back from an Army deployment in Iraq and I'm letting you know I've made it my life's mission to murder you"

[MetricFurlong]

Exactly, but I don't agree with that statement. I don't think devs are sitting around in conference rooms saying "we don't have enough violence against women to get across the point that our game world is dark and gritty". I believe that it's a symptom of lazy creativity.

The thing is, a creatively lazy decision is still an intentional decision. The fact that someone presumably thought to themselves 'this world will be dark and gritty so a scene or two of women being treated badly will reflect that' and didn't consider thinking about it beyond that does not mean it wasn't a decision.
Scripted scenes don't just happen by themselves, someone had to make the call to include them somewhere along the line. Hence, these scenes are still deliberate.

[Duckay]

And they're probably not consciously thinking of it in terms of "let's show some violence against women! That's gritty!". They're probably thinking "let's make this a realistic dark and gritty society! That means rape!".

Sarkeesian addressed the "realism" angle as have many others, so I won't go too deep on it. In a nutshell, though, I highly doubt it's being done deliberately to harm women, but that doesn't mean it's not an active choice they are making which is causing some kind of harm.