Jupiterian Local
Is that an improvement over having such scenes, but showing them as bad and wrong? I wouldn't say so. I'd say it's better to say "this happens, and it's wrong and we should stop it from happening" than to say nothing on the topic at all.
Of course, it's possible to go too far in the other direction and portray women as inherently being weak victims. That's bad too. Which is why I've been saying that context within the work is important — if the work shows all victims as women, or all women as victims, then that's bad, because it reinforces the "women are weak and need to be protected by men" trope. But if you have balanced portrayals of women — some are victims, some are heroes, some are bystanders, some are villains — then I don't see how it can be considered sexist.
edited 29th Aug '14 7:41:20 AM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
I get what you're saying, but again, there are ways to portray violence towards anyone and it be used as a source of commentary or raising awareness and you're not being sexist.
One way to show a strong character is to also show strong weaknesses and realistic weaknesses.
For example: Sansa Stark from a Song of Ice and Fire. I find myself whining about how frivolous the girl is, but the context is greatly established that she's frivolous because she's been trained to be that way. She's been trained to romanticize the dream of being a Lady to a noble night which is all her worth is to society. In the books Ned Stark is criticized by Catelyn for not paying more attention to his daughters and he is genuinely confused because he his filling his lordly parental obligations by training the boys.
But she becomes a strong character by her realistic growth and her determination to make the use of her limited tools, much like Cersei. As Aprilla pointed out, quality of writing is fundamental in this. Arya is a much better use of a violent female character then say Jennifer Lopez in Enough not just because the difference in quality, but Arya makes sense with her actions, environment, and growing disposition. The other movie is a complete train wreck piece of trash.
I am also including this: Once Were Warriors: Jake beats his wife
Now I have never seen this movie in full, but as an art student this movie was referred to me in my makeups class. As a student of Law Enforcement I can also tell you this is a more apt depiction of what happens in an abusive relationship. I am having to link the scene through an article because I can't access youtube directly from my work computer. But I strongly urge everyone to go through that list, it has some good stuff on it.
As with the media I mentioned previously, these are stories that need to be told and can be told in a way that is fair and real. Video games can do this as well. If anything, the immersive qualities and interactivity of video games can make these moments even more tangible and effective. I wouldn't mind seeing a game that takes a Spec Ops: The Line approach to say, the common adventure tools in Grand Theft Auto.
edited 29th Aug '14 7:59:11 AM by Gabrael
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Or, another problem could be that the people who don't agree with her are approaching her videos with a critical and negative slant from the beginning. Basically, looking for faults in the video itself and either failing (or refusing) to see the points and to connect any more dots than A to B.
Saying that her videos don't work because only the people who already agree with her or know about the problem get it is not fundamentally different from assuming that the people who are against her or didn't notice a pattern hinder themselves from getting it.
I would like to point out that I really, really dislike this argument because there's no way to win here. If she didn't show all of the examples, people would say she's exaggerating. If she shows them all, they say she's not getting to the point.
Again, this should be clear by the title of the video. The title of the video, and particularly this sub-series, is the use of women as background dressing for stories told for the benefit of men. This is followed by pretty much example after example explaining exactly what she's talking about. She doesn't just talk about women being sexually exploited (which they are, very much), but how graphic and rage-porn-fetishizing it is. I watched it again this morning, and she seriously does not stop talking about the criteria I mentioned before, and spends a lot of time on demonstration. Again, this is because she was trying to establish that a pattern exists by showing the pattern.
And you keep making the same incorrect statement. You do not have to look at stuff from the same work. You keep repeating the assumption that sexism is a total meter which goes up and down. Let me repeat this one more time, because I'm tired of saying it, and it apparently isn't working anyway: No. It doesn't.
Sexism is a very nebulous, very ambiguous thing that requires a lot of discussion, consideration, and reinterpretation. While some works may provide context that makes something that was perceived sexist be less sexist or "not sexist" with full consideration, this should not be assumed for EVERY work, and it shouldn't be the baseline assumption. It forces you to look at every single work, in whole as either "sexist" or "not sexist", with little to no middle ground or degrees. You can't talk about the sexism of a trope in itself (which, I'll remind you, is the point of her videos—not to pass judgment on an ENTIRE WORK) because that trope becomes "not sexist" if balanced by something else in the same work.
At this point, I really don't know how else I can explain this.
Jupiterian Local
@Gabrael — Absolutely agreed. Song of Ice and Fire is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. Yes, it has women who are weak and victimized (like Sansa, or Lysa Tully), but it also has women who are powerful and have agency in both political (Cersei, Catelyn) and physical (Breinne, Arya, Ygritte) senses. It has both good and evil women, victimized and victorious women, weak and powerful women. It has numerous scenes that would fail Sarkeesian's criteria of acceptability (like Joffery having Sansa beaten), but I have a hard time calling A Song of Ice and Fire sexist. The theme in ASOIAF is that women are people, no more and no less — good, bad, weak, strong, victim, villain, etc etc, just like any other person.
re: quality of Sarkeesian's videos — my point isn't to say that her videos aren't perfect, therefore they're bad. My point is that there's room to agree with her in general (sexism is prevalent in games, and that should be addressed) while disagreeing with her on specifics and/or finding their execution flawed (like I've been doing). I certainly think that making the videos was a good idea, but there are still some very serious flaws with them that limit their effectiveness.
re: explaining what she's talking about — at this point I'm not sure what else I can say. Demonstrating is not the same as explanation. She had tons of examples, but I didn't think her explanation of her points was sufficient. This goes back to the "it only really works if you already know what she's talking about", thing. I'm not a stupid person, but I don't have any formal education about feminist issues. If people who do have that formal background get what she's saying and I don't, then that seems to indicate that her presentation is effective for those already familiar with the subject, but ineffective for those who don't.
re: scenes in isolation vs works as a whole — you don't seem to be understanding what I'm getting at. I'm not saying that sexism is a meter that goes up and down. I'm not saying that feminist messaging in one part of a work negates or overrules sexist messaging in another. I'm saying that you can only judge sexism in terms of patterns, and you can't judge patterns from a single example. A scene consisting of a man beating a women is not sexist in and of itself, because there's no pattern of women being inherently weak, inferior, etc. A movie where all the women are beaten, or only women are beaten? That's sexist, because there's a pattern of women being portrayed as victims more than men are. I'm not saying that we should automatically assume that every work with a possibly-sexist scene isn't actually sexist because another scene that breaks the pattern probably exists elsewhere in the work. But I am saying that we shouldn't assume that the work is sexist until you've had an opportunity to experience the work on a whole and judge it on its merits.
Coming from some one who supports her, if that is the case she used some pretty poor examples not even fitting her own definition, the scene she starts the video off with for instance, does not happen to a random NPC, it does NOT lack consequence, and is NOT used to showcase how shitty that guy is.
It happens to the player character, it affects her the entire fucking game, and it is used to showcase how shitty her life is, and not because she is a woman, but because she is an elf.
edited 29th Aug '14 9:40:39 AM by Imca
But many of your disagreements on her specifics are coupled with (what I am trying to prove are) false misconceptions about the argument in question. A lot of your post is interlaced with complaints about her presentation and the argument itself, to the point that I have to address both because I think you're coming at it from the wrong angle entirely.
As I said, that argument works both ways. If you think her argument works if you already know what, or agree with, she's talking about, then that means it's also possible that being inherently ignorant, unfamiliar, or opposed to what she says can have an opposite effect and prevent her argument from getting through due to no fault of her own. For reference, I have never, ever seen a person with a social justice argument say something so profound that every person who heard immediately agreed with and fully understood said argument.
I'm not even arguing that Sarkeesian's argument for the video is perfect, but like I said, the complaints I am hearing are so mixed in with what I consider misconceptions that I find myself defending both.
Oh for Pete's sake...
This is exactly what I was talking about when I mentioned not seeing the forest for the trees. Sarkeesian's argument, nor mine, was never this specific example is bad. Her argument is "this is bad because of how often it happens, and the pattern of ways in which it happens". That is what makes stereotypes, in general, bad; not that they don't exist, but that they are an overabundant means of portraying a certain group.
What you are saying right now, is the equivalent of someone telling you, "This herd of cows is blocking traffic" and then saying "But we can drive around one cow, so I don't see the problem."
You are defining "judge a pattern" as "judging a pattern in a single work alone" rather than "a pattern in ALL works", which is wrong.
It happens to the player character, it affects her the entire fucking game, and it is used to showcase how shitty her life is, and not because she is a woman, but because she is an elf.
But, IIRC, the Player Character is NOT the only character that the scene happens to. And, furthermore, there's another female character who gets victimized far worse. The other character fits what Sarkeesian was talking about rather well.
Although, it's been a while since I've played DA:O.
Also, really? I thought the Evil Laugh couldn't have made it more clear that this was a big neon sign proclaiming "THIS CHARACTER IS AN EVIL SHIT!"
edited 29th Aug '14 10:37:38 AM by KingZeal
Jovian, I'm not sure why you're saying "a single instance isn't bad" when literally all Sarkeesian is doing with these videos in general is pointing out SEVERAL examples of things happening. She doesn't have to focus on a single game; she's not acting as a game reviewer here. She's looking at several games and pointing out the pattern across several different stories that something she things is really skeevy is happening. It's like you're deliberately ignoring the pattern in favor of saying "but she's not spending enough time on one game to know it's not sexist." She has never spent one time saying that it was one instance that made a particular game sexist. She's been spending all her time saying that these examples in aggregate (because she's looking at games in aggregate) lead to an unwelcoming and sometimes hostile environment. Getting bogged down in one game would defeat the purpose of this specific series of videos.
No, no, that's not the point of the videos to get stuck in one game. The point is to pick out the pattern across several different games and examine the sexism contained in that pattern. It's like you're saying she's doing it wrong because she's not doing the specific way that you would do it. And as a result not really understanding what she's saying.
The focus was never on him being an evil shit though, in fact I played through that origin last week, and could not even remember his name, the focus is that your life is shit.
No, but she IS the focus of the scene, on account of being the player character, she is the intended target of the victimization.
edited 29th Aug '14 11:11:43 AM by Imca
Wait. I think we're talking past each other here.
"Showing that this character is evil" doesn't mean "making this character memorable". It just means to show that he's evil. Specifically, he was simply a Flat Character meant to symbolize everything wrong with the Alienage and what specifically makes your life shit.
The focus of the scene is "on you", but the ultimate victim of the scene is your cousin. It's like a scene where a villain has a beef with the male character, but rapes or kills his girlfriend. Sure, you were the focal point, but the female NPC is the one who suffers the worst of it.
I apoligize for small.post butI have had to switch to using my phone.
The problem with the last comparison, is in those cases the hero is not involved he tarhets the girlfriend specificly, where as in that origin, he intends to rape you just as much as he does Shiani, you just kind of murder him before he can.
You were an intended target of the exact same action, where as in your example the hero is not.
A comparable example would be a hero in a hostage situation, the villian kills his bestfriend and goes to shoot him as well when somehow the hero hulks out and kills the villian, and even then it is not the best since it puts the focus on the villian rather then your life sucks so much you almost died in a hostage situation any way.
Alright. I concede that the distinction could have and should have been noted.
ごめんなさい
edited 29th Aug '14 12:04:25 PM by KingZeal
Aaaaaaaaaaaand it starts out right away with an assault on her character and speculated motivations.
Not taking anything else it says seriously.
edited 29th Aug '14 5:26:28 PM by KingZeal
Eh, I don't agree with him, but I still think Anthony Fantano is a nice guy overall.
You know, I don't understand how people can enjoy something so much and then not somehow think that it doesn't effect them. I mean, it's obvious that nothing can immediately turn you into a jackass or some kind of crazy guy, but media does have an effect on people. Subtle ones.
That guy just let out several paragraphs of the same dumb ranting about "she's not a gamer" that I've seen elsewhere and comes off as a pompous windbag. And why the fuck is he comparing her to the PMRC anyway? That seems moronic. And she has pointed out games that she likes in some videos!
edited 30th Aug '14 8:17:26 AM by AceofSpades
Jupiterian Local
Honestly, her videos comes off like an academic presentation aimed at other academics. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with feminist criticism in an academic tone, but it's not very effective at reaching a public audience.
Honestly, her videos comes off like an academic presentation aimed at other academics. Which is fine, there's nothing wrong with feminist criticism in an academic tone, but it's not very effective at reaching a public audience.
Except that even people who have the stated prerequisites for understanding may not know the specifics, may not know how pervasive the problem is, and may not have examples." Someone like, say, ME.
So here I am, using what she taught me, to in turn explain it in ways that a video never could. That's a pretty successful result.
This is like saying that calling something a cliche is wrong because it's not the writer's fault that the cliche exists. Fault isn't the issue; the issue is the aggregate that they are contributing to. A person is free to include a cliche, or stereotype, in their work if they like, but that does not stop it from being such, nor does it mean others cannot or should not criticize it.
That's not her goal, nor is it her job. Her goal is to call attention to these problems, not fix them herself.
For example, the Progressive rights era of the early 20th Century was about identifying problems and inequities. Their goals were to prove that the problems existed, and it took a later era (such as the Civil Rights Era) to figure out how to fix them.
First, see above. That's not her job.
Second, see even further above. If it's the writers job to write around cliches, it's their job to write around stereotypes. It's an unreasonable request to ask critics, or advocates of disadvantaged groups, to only speak up if they can write a better story.
edited 30th Aug '14 1:01:38 PM by KingZeal
Anthony Fantano is, in his own words, "the internet's busiest music nerd." From what I can tell, he's not really interested in video games, so from his perspective it's probably easier to draw parallels to "Concerned Parents" that actively tried to damage the music industry from the outside. Given how he's very passionate about music in general, I can imagine that I'd be annoyed by it too if I were in his position.
There's something called "ingroup favoritism" in sociology where people are much more likely to react negatively to people from outside their own group. The "not a gamer" argument is mostly an expression of this bias because many people view Anita Sarkeesian as an "outsider."
edited 30th Aug '14 11:40:00 AM by Zennistrad
Jupiterian Local
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
If you were able to get something out of her videos, then that's wonderful — but the rest of us are apparently SOL, and people who have a formal academic background in feminism are certainly vastly outnumbered by people who don't. If she wants to reach the widest possible audience — and I think it's clear that she does — then she should be making sure that even a newcomer to the subject can understand what she's talking about. She hasn't, which is a failure on her part. I'm not saying that it makes her videos worthless or useless, I'm just saying that it makes them less effective than they could have been.
No, there is nothing in her videos which says she is trying to reach a maximum audience. That's the definition of Lowest Common Denominator, which she has never expressed an interest in reaching out to.
As I said, she can fulfil her goal by reaching out to the people who get it, but lack context. Which is what is apparently happening right now.
Jupiterian Local
So, what you're saying is that the fact that she's talking over the heads of the vast majority of the people watching her videos is okay, because she's not really talking to them anyway, but actually talking to people who already have a background in the subject?
Okay, I guess.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Ahr river
If that's her intended demographic then...yeah
That's why the people who share her video tend to be feminist-minded, but not great articulators of it.
Read my stories!
As I said, that's if I agree with your assessment. Which I don't.
In general, social justice discussions require people to already be on the same page to even start discussing deeper points. For example, you can't mention the term "male power fantasy" without immediately getting a hostile reaction.
Jupiterian Local
Woah-hey, I just noticed that you edited in a bunch more stuff to your post two or three up.
One of the issues I've brought up repeatedly is that while Sarkeesian explains what she finds problematic at great length, I have no idea what she wants to see instead. Let's say that I'm a game developer watching her series. I take her commentary to heart and decide that I'm going to incorporate her criticism into my game. Great! Except... I don't actually have any idea of how to do that. Just using the most recent video as an example: if it's unacceptable to portray violence against women as a cheap Kick the Dog moment for the villain, or to establish the setting as Darker and Edgier, then what is an acceptable way to portray violence against women? Is there an acceptable way? Should all works of fiction simply not have any portrayals of violence against women at all? Well, no, because that leads to ignoring the problem — ignoring the fact that violence against women is a thing that happens and is bad — instead of addressing it. So how should game developers go about dealing with the issue the right way? I have no idea, and Sarkeesian sheds no light on the subject.
And this post got ninja'd again while I was writing it.
Looks like Samus isn't going to be the only one dressed in skimpy clothing in Smash Bros.
◊