Tropes vs Women Ep.2

[tamaness]

Society and humanity is fucking awful. Society and humanity will never change because society and humanity will always be awful. I've given plenty of examples of why I'm so against this whole shit-flinging contest.

This "shit-flinging contest" is about changing trends. If you don't want to participate, don't.

I treat every single woman with respect, exact same amount of respect I give men. Unless they, as a person, do not deserve my respect because of their attitude. Nothing at all to do with their gender, nationality, sexual orientation, race. None of that matters.

Great. Maybe you can teach the rest of our gender to do the same?

It solves nothing. What was hopefully going to be a respectful discussion.. Is really just an extreme soapbox, with the nasty over-exaggerated claims, with zero actual context from the original creators.

The creators don't get the luxury of providing context. The media in question should stand on its own. The only thing that the original video in question said was "these games follow this pattern. We should probably ask ourselves why."

So.. When hardcore feminists claim that there's an issue..

Not a hardcore feminist here, and I acknowledge there's an issue. There is an issue. We aren't trying to hold people's feet to the fire to change things (yet). We're just trying to start on level ground: there is an issue, whether you acknowledge it or not.

It's hard to relate when.. People are perfectly fine with it and don't care for the "feminist cause". Again, to reiterate, I'm on nobody's side. I'm looking at all this neutrally. And everything is fucked.

Then why are you trying to take part in the discussion? You've demonstrated that you're not interested in civilized discourse on the subject, and aren't willing to give a little as you demand others do.

And yes, you, as an individual are a part of society, and as such, if you recognize an issue, it is up to you to make it known and fix it.

When abstracting the point, this discussion reads like this (and this is why I haven't jumped in until now):
"There are people who own other people."
"I don't own other people, and I think you should let those others have their say about why they own other people."
"The fact is that there are people who are property. It is a problem. The owners don't get to justify their actions; it's part of the problem."
"But I don't own other people!"
"You're kind of missing the point..."

[MattAn]

When abstracting the point, this discussion reads like this (and this is why I haven't jumped in until now):
"There are people who own other people."
"I don't own other people, and I think you should let those others have their say about why they own other people."
"The fact is that there are people who are property. It is a problem. The owners don't get to justify their actions; it's part of the problem."
"But I don't own other people!"
"You're kind of missing the point..."

Using the term "owning" is a very extreme claim to make. Or am I just supposed to ignore the demographic of people who are actually submissive and choose to be? I don't have to agree with it, what other people want to do is their business. It is not up to anyone else to decide things for them.

And no. I don't, at all, have to be "part of society". That is a forced view and not one single person has to conform to it.

There is an issue. We aren't trying to hold people's feet to the fire to change things (yet). We're just trying to start on level ground: there is an issue, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Yes, there's an issue. Already know is. After all, I did preorder Remember Me. I know that several publishers turned it down because it has a female lead. I want those publishers named and shamed, much like everyone else does. Well done to Capcom for stepping up though.

As the video I linked from Gaming Anarchist Collective points out, he (like I am) is in the "average gaming demographic" of teenage boys and young (mostly white) adults. This demographic was not decided on by US. It was decided on by games marketing people. That's their job, and yes, they're fucking it up. Also as the GAC video states, we want to see more games featuring strong female protagonists. There are many people who want more of this. As GAC video explains, games publishers/marketers "perceive" that this demographic "wouldn't want to play a game as a female". I call bullshit on this implication immediately. I've played many MMO's over the last few years. I'm also going to be playing Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn. My main character? Is female. I absolutely despise the disgusting dudes who say "I only choose a female character because I'd rather see a woman's butt than a dude's!" I think it's disgraceful. Why do I mostly play female characters (well, for FFXIV, I'll probably have two characters, both genders)? Because they have a lot better customization and they're fucking badass. Female Dragoon or Samurai? (Melee classes with full metal/plate armour. Nothing is too revealing.) Much more awesome.

I am not saying that the claim exists in this thread (which people seem to think I'm blaming them for (Matt, etc). I'm not. I am stating my experiences that I have legitimately had to deal with from others who claim to support "Feminism". The claims that I'm an MRA or that I'm "part of the problem", simply for not picking a side. I whole-heartedly refuse to pick any side. Both have their major faults. No one is 100% perfect or correct. I was sick of repeating myself 2-3 pages ago. I knew that people would immediately go "How fucking DARE you not instantly think everything we say is truth and exactly the right thing!" This is not how you gather support. This is exactly how you turn people away.

[Metcarfre]

When abstracting the point, this discussion reads like this (and this is why I haven't jumped in until now):
"There are people who own other people."
"I don't own other people, and I think you should let those others have their say about why they own other people."
"The fact is that there are people who are property. It is a problem. The owners don't get to justify their actions; it's part of the problem."
"But I don't own other people!"
"You're kind of missing the point..."

Using the term "owning" is a very extreme claim to make. Or am I just supposed to ignore the demographic of people who are actually submissive and choose to be? I don't have to agree with it, what other people want to do is their business. It is not up to anyone else to decide things for them.

Holy shit are you actually this fucking obtuse.

[MattAn]

Holy shit am I actually this fucking passive-aggressive asshat.

FTFY... ¬_¬
Oh goody! Can't "foe" admins or mods. Perfect. That rules out ignoring your posts. Oh well! No point hanging around these forums again. I guess things just never change. You're only important/relevant if you've been here longer. Fair enough.

[Metcarfre]

Like, you understand it was a metaphor for a conversation about how women are portrayed in media, but he spun it around and compared it to talking about slavery, right?

And that was straight-up aggressive, no passivity involved.

[AdmiralMemo]

When abstracting the point, this discussion reads like this (and this is why I haven't jumped in until now):
"There are people who own other people."
"I don't own other people, and I think you should let those others have their say about why they own other people."
"The fact is that there are people who are property. It is a problem. The owners don't get to justify their actions; it's part of the problem."
"But I don't own other people!"
"You're kind of missing the point..."

Using the term "owning" is a very extreme claim to make. Or am I just supposed to ignore the demographic of people who are actually submissive and choose to be? I don't have to agree with it, what other people want to do is their business. It is not up to anyone else to decide things for them.

Holy shit are you actually this fucking obtuse.

I was about to post this image, as it seemed appropriate:

[MattAn]

"Motherfucker", huh? Well, if that ain't sexist...

[AdmiralMemo]

I don't even curse IRL, but since that image is a popular meme, and it was appropriate to the situation, and I couldn't find any censored versions of it...

[MattAn]

a popular meme

appropriate to the situation

Nope, that isn't possible. Memes are almost always piles of shit.

And... Also nope. Unless your plan was to prove me right. I will call bullshit when something is literally bullshit.

There are people who go way too far into extremist nonsense. I can't possibly put it any better than the GAC video did already. This petty nonsense is beyond insane. I have explained several times why. Ms. Sarkeesian is clearly using people and profiting from it. The whole hiring police protection thing? Isn't exactly arguing against the stereotype. In fact, it's promoting it. Where is the extra $148,000 going? There was a lot less necessary. People have thrown more money at something that no longer needed money. Anita is not a charity. Why hasn't the remaining money gone to causes like stopping Domestic Violence or abuse within families? I'm fairly certain she'd have less hate against her if it didn't look like blatant profiting.

As mentioned in the GAC video, there are plenty of people who are actively sending a better message for Feminism/Equality on YouTube, etc, and are doing it without profiting from it. All Anita has gained from this is fame and notoriety. She's dragging everything out, extending the length of that fame. Others are doing it far better and aren't doing it for fame.

[AdmiralMemo]

Memes are almost always piles of shit.

Opinion. Not going to argue because I simply disagree.

Others are doing it far better and aren't doing it for fame.

Hrm... Why does this seem familiar?

Oh yeah...

She's not saying anything that other (possibly better) people haven't already said.

Because it was my argument from 5 pages ago.

Therefore, this thread is just going around in circles, and I'd like to get off, please.

[MattAn]

Oh yeah...

She's not saying anything that other (possibly better) people haven't already said.

Because it was my argument from 5 pages ago.

Valid point. I apologise for snapping at you. Honestly forgot you'd said it. D:

Also, so I've been talking to Ash (yes, LRR's/related to Steve Dengler, Ash) on le Facebook. She's kind of on the "middle/upper-class North American white females are whining too much" side. So.. Take of that what you will.
"Of course I'll yell and scream if someone is clearly being victimized, but attacking content-producers for not making a product/character that meets the criteria of someone's own belief system is ludicrous." This. This is using logic. Ash is all kinds of awesome.

I'm starting to think that Gaming Anarchist Collective video I posted is the most logical argument to ever exist. Awesome.

[Ptangmatik]

Relevant gifset:
http://a-most-peculiar-mademoiselle.tumblr.com/post/52013710379/clara-run-you-clever-boy-124

A women is telling Martha she can't be a doctor, she is saying this because of what she learned growing up in the Patriarchy.

This is not so that we can blame men for everything, this is just so we understand the reasons why people think the way they do. We are not saying men are the enemy, we are just saying we are the victim. There can be a victim without a person to blame.

I know this was a few pages ago, but I thought you might like to know: The woman is the rather talented Jessica Hines nee Stevenson (You might remember her as Daisy in 'Spaced') and she has a new sitcom out called 'Up the Women' about the early days of the British Women's Suffrage movement. It's started off reasonably funny with a lot of potential, I'm hoping it follows the same trend as Sue Perkin's recent sitcom 'Heading Out' and becomes more funny as the characters develop and get comfortable in their roles.

Tangentially related. This is as close to this thread as I feel comfortable getting.

[Metcarfre]

I know this was a few pages ago, but I thought you might like to know: The woman is Jessica Hines nee Stevenson (You might remember her as Daisy in 'Spaced')

You know, I thought so. Just finished that show. Good to know.

[Ptangmatik]

[Metcarfre]

[Ptangmatik]

I'm just a font of useless tidbits like that

[Matt]

-m

[Ptangmatik]

Yes Matt, I seem to get that reaction to my posts a lot.

[MattAn]

[Metcarfre]

OH found the gif I tried to find for a post a little ways back;

[Matt]

That gif is incredible.

Probably not helping, but incredible.

-m

[Metcarfre]

It's quite popular on The Reddits.

[Pikachaos]

Oh yeah...

She's not saying anything that other (possibly better) people haven't already said.

Because it was my argument from 5 pages ago.

Valid point. I apologise for snapping at you. Honestly forgot you'd said it. D:

Also, so I've been talking to Ash (yes, LRR's/related to Steve Dengler, Ash) on le Facebook. She's kind of on the "middle/upper-class North American white females are whining too much" side. So.. Take of that what you will.
"Of course I'll yell and scream if someone is clearly being victimized, but attacking content-producers for not making a product/character that meets the criteria of someone's own belief system is ludicrous." This. This is using logic. Ash is all kinds of awesome.

I'm starting to think that Gaming Anarchist Collective video I posted is the most logical argument to ever exist. Awesome.

That's precisely why things need to change. I respect Ash a lot, but it's just her opinion, as my opinion is that I'd really like better female characters.

This is why I want more diversity in female characters in video games.
Yes there are a hundred of the same types of male characters, but this is out of a million different games with male leading and supporting characters, where as with female characters there are less plot important female characters, and way less character types. This is the same in all media, and the same with minorities and LGBTQ characters. There is very little diversity, and therefore, when there is a GOOD female character it has to be making some kind of statement and be a "girl" targeted game. Where as there are enough games with important male characters that they can refine what makes a male character not shitty.
Let's say you put a gay character in a game, it is either going to be a shitty stereotype, or it's going to be trying to be the best gay character ever, and therefor there is a LOT riding on it because it's the ONLY gay character out of 100 games. If you fuck this up, that's it.

Basically, if we had more female characters who were in important roles in games, and if the better half of them were above the threshold of shameless object, then there could be a shitty female character, and it wouldn't matter, because another one in the game would make up for it, or I could play another game.

Let's take Friends [the 90's sitcom]. What if I think Rachel is a shitty female character [I don't, but that's beside the point] then it's okay, because I think Pheobe and Monica at least fill the role of a realistic portrayal of a woman. Maybe I'm the kind of woman who only thinks fashionista/ feminine women are okay? Well I have Rachel.
If there is only one female character that isn't just a pair of boobs in a batch of 100 games, and she's also kinda shitty, then well fuck, my interests in having a female character I can identify with is gone.

Basically, one female character that I personally don't like is fine. But when there are no characters that I myself identify with because there is an overwhelming supply of that one character I don't like, then my shit's fucked.


Also afternote, I know that text discussions can get heated because you can't hear my tone, but I assure you that my tone is not heated and that I am not faulting you for your beliefs, I am just attempting to help you understand where I am coming from.

[Pikachaos]

And I think I finally arrived at my biggest problem with female tropes. So I am happy with what I've put on the table. :3

[JackSlack]

Only tangentially related, but fuck me, the comments here.