No Right Answer: Is Anita Sarkeesian Wrong?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
 

Sexual Harassment Panda:
Ms. Pacman isn't about character or story-telling. It's about money for old-rope. I suspect they weren't planning a franchise when they released Pacman, and I know they didn't believe they were expanding the universe in any meaningful way when they released Ms. Pacman... It's the same bloody game!

What could you add to pacman as a gender signifier anyway? You could give him a beard, but it'd look shit. It's a lot easier to name gender-signifiers for females. Men... they don't accessorize.

Instead of Ms. Pacman's bow, it could have been Pacman's bow tie. That was easy.

Considering all the bawhawhaw and outright wrong things Anita Sarkeesian has said, No Right Answer is not the place for this question.

The_Kodu:

Yahtzee's videos are a highly subjective opinion upon a piece of media. Ms Sarkeesian's are meant to be a highly objective look at the media ...

I believe you've missed my point. Regardless of content, is it unreasonable to expect that people would want to support her videos? I think not. I merely suggested Yahtzee as another example, in our common knowledge, of a person who makes videos online who might also reasonably expect support were he to crowd-fund something. Knowing that people are so willing to crowd-fund things, it is reasonable to expect Ms. Sarkeesian would receive funding, at least from her fan-base, and as we saw much more when she got national news coverage. (even though you might never fathom supporting her, there are many who would)

The_Kodu:

However apparently the fact the character is male means they should stand there and take the violent attacks and not be allowed to fight back. Which in itself says "Women need protecting they are not equal to men".

Really? I never once heard Ms. Sarkeesian espouse that kind of view in any of her videos. Maybe I missed it? I've watched most of them, how about you? Perhaps you could point me in the right direction, you seem to be equally familiar with her work.

However, I must admit I do not see how "women need protecting" necessarily equates to "women are not equal to men." For example, in the first ever racial integration at Alabama (University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa), the new black students were escorted by armed bodyguards. I doubt anyone would argue that they didn't need protection, and I doubt anyone would argue that blacks are not equal to anyone else. (the logically analogous argument to the one you seem to proclaim as self evident would be: "Black students need protecting they are not equal to other students.")

Moreover, just because men are victims of domestic violence too, does not mean that some aspects of games Ms. Sarkeesian lists do not still contribute to domestic violence against women.

The_Kodu:

...the fact Krystal fox after Starfox adventures joins the star fox crew as a female mercenary fighter pilot.

Similar to your point on domestic violence, just because Krystal joins the squad after she is rescued does not diminish from the fact that she is an excellent example of the damsel in distress trope. She is held powerless for a man to come save her; that's the trope in a nutshell. Krystal exemplifies this. Her role in the squad after she has been saved in no way changes the fact that she has been rendered powerless (by a man, iirc) for a man to come rescue. This piece of information is never said precisely because it has no relevance to the argument that Krystal is a good example of a "damsel in distress."

God of Path:

The_Kodu:

Yahtzee's videos are a highly subjective opinion upon a piece of media. Ms Sarkeesian's are meant to be a highly objective look at the media ...

I believe you've missed my point. Regardless of content, is it unreasonable to expect that people would want to support her videos? I think not. I merely suggested Yahtzee as another example, in our common knowledge, of a person who makes videos online who might also reasonably expect support were he to crowd-fund something. Knowing that people are so willing to crowd-fund things, it is reasonable to expect Ms. Sarkeesian would receive funding, at least from her fan-base, and as we saw much more when she got national news coverage. (even though you might never fathom supporting her, there are many who would)

The difference of course would simply be in intent.
if Yahtzee went to Kickstarter asking for crowd funding it would be with the understanding his videos would be highly subjective while Anita seemingly set out her Kickstarter with the impression of a fair objective look at video games treatment of female characters.

God of Path:

The_Kodu:

However apparently the fact the character is male means they should stand there and take the violent attacks and not be allowed to fight back. Which in itself says "Women need protecting they are not equal to men".

Really? I never once heard Ms. Sarkeesian espouse that kind of view in any of her videos. Maybe I missed it? I've watched most of them, how about you? Perhaps you could point me in the right direction, you seem to be equally familiar with her work.

However, I must admit I do not see how "women need protecting" necessarily equates to "women are not equal to men." For example, in the first ever racial integration at Alabama (University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa), the new black students were escorted by armed bodyguards. I doubt anyone would argue that they didn't need protection, and I doubt anyone would argue that blacks are not equal to anyone else. (the logically analogous argument to the one you seem to proclaim as self evident would be: "Black students need protecting they are not equal to other students.")

Moreover, just because men are victims of domestic violence too, does not mean that some aspects of games Ms. Sarkeesian lists do not still contribute to domestic violence against women.

Nice use of reducto Ad abserdium however that can be broken down the other way by simply asking "So all women should be afraid and have bodyguards about just in case ?"

Infact the argument can be turned against itself as rescuing the damsel is protecting them is it not ?
If it is seen as sexist to help someone in the Damsels in distress case to follow their own desires, discrediting the damsel ball, then that is sexist ?
The idea of the damsel ball removes the concept of free will from the "damsel" and infact implies that inaction is more preferable infact ignoring the "damsel's" own desire and opinion on the matter in doing so it actually does just what it was set out to demonstate games doing, it turns characters into objects by ignoring said characters own wishes.

So GTA V that lead to a huge amount of shootings and violence in the streets right ?
Wait it didn't ?
So claiming connections and links without any solid evidence base is a really bad idea ?
your suggestion that violence against women in video games leads to real world domestic violence needs some kind of backing. This is also remembering that 90% of said cases in games are actually done by the villain. The 10% being cases where it's being called violence against women but as mentioned before it was the female being the aggressor initially and with the Male defending and as such is technically self defence.

Are we now meant to follow the actions of Videogame villains ?
If so why aren't there evil scientists creating robotic killer animals everywhere ?

God of Path:

The_Kodu:

...the fact Krystal fox after Starfox adventures joins the star fox crew as a female mercenary fighter pilot.

Similar to your point on domestic violence, just because Krystal joins the squad after she is rescued does not diminish from the fact that she is an excellent example of the damsel in distress trope. She is held powerless for a man to come save her; that's the trope in a nutshell. Krystal exemplifies this. Her role in the squad after she has been saved in no way changes the fact that she has been rendered powerless (by a man, iirc) for a man to come rescue. This piece of information is never said precisely because it has no relevance to the argument that Krystal is a good example of a "damsel in distress."

However it does diminish the status applied permanently by the trope. The idea of once a damsel always a damsel can't be applied because in the other example I gave of Samus Aran, technically she's a Damsel in Distress for 4-5 games after the event despite said event being 5 minutes in the intro.
To look at it an alternative way as I've said before taking gender out of the equation.
A person from a less advanced tribe attacks a far more technically advanced foe, who wins ?
A person from an equally technically advanced group attacks said foe now, who would win ?
I'm sure you'd agree the second is far more up in the air than the first.
If you want to consider it this alternative way then the rescue isn't gender related it's the reward for the initial display of courage in standing up to the more advanced foe initially despite having little to no chance of winning.

The_Kodu:

The difference of course...

Thank you very much for the cogent (and if I might say, quite speedy) response!

The_Kodu:

Nice use of reducto Ad abserdium however that can be broken down the other way by simply asking "So all women should be afraid and have bodyguards about just in case ?"

Infact the argument can be turned against itself as rescuing the damsel is protecting them is it not ?
If it is seen as sexist to help someone in the Damsels in distress case to follow their own desires, discrediting the damsel ball, then that is sexist ?
The idea of the damsel ball removes the concept of free will from the "damsel" and infact implies that inaction is more preferable infact ignoring the "damsel's" own desire and opinion on the matter in doing so it actually does just what it was set out to demonstate games doing, it turns characters into objects by ignoring said characters own wishes.

So GTA V that lead to a huge amount of shootings and violence in the streets right ?
Wait it didn't ?
So claiming connections and links without any solid evidence base is a really bad idea ?
your suggestion that violence against women in video games leads to real world domestic violence needs some kind of backing. This is also remembering that 90% of said cases in games are actually done by the villain. The 10% being cases where it's being called violence against women but as mentioned before it was the female being the aggressor initially and with the Male defending and as such is technically self defence.

Are we now meant to follow the actions of Videogame villains ?
If so why aren't there evil scientists creating robotic killer animals everywhere ?
[sic]

Again, I do not see how you have reached the conclusion that the argument can reduced to "So all women should be afraid and have bodyguards." What do women have to fear that would necessitate a constant bodyguard? I think we can both agree that "women are equal to men" does not logically lead one to conclude that "women are afraid," or even that "women should have bodyguards." That leads me to conclude that you drew this reduction from "women need protecting." Note that I do not necessarily espouse this opinion, however, I believe that the (reformed) statement "some women may need protection," is not untrue. It is know that there are some areas, even in well developed nations, where it is inadvisable to walk alone after dark if you are a woman. A woman in this situation is ostensibly in need of protection. I do not see how it would follow that "all women should be afraid and have bodyguards about just in case," simply because sometimes women are in a situation where they have reason to fear for their safety.

It is not sexist to acknowledge that, unfortunately, these situations do exist. Protecting a person in need of protection (for whatever reason) has no inherent ties one sex or another. However, the damsel in distress trope deals with the dis-empowerment of women so that they may act as an object. Offense is not taken so much to the fact that they are being saved from this dis-empowerment, but to the fact that otherwise powerful women are stripped of their power and agency, and are unable to act but to be saved. To me, at least, the re-empowerment after they have been saved only serves to reinforce how powerless they were made.

Now I must challenge you in your assertion either Ms. Sarkeesian or I professed that sexism in games causes real world sexism or even real world violence against women. (Though there is an argument to be made for Ms. Sarkeesian's abuse as an example of real world violence stemming from pointing out sexism in video games.) Like her, I only posit that the repeated dis-empowerment of women in video games (and other media) contributes to a society wherein women are perceived (and too often treated) as less equal. It would be absurd to think that a media portrayal of something has any sort of causal effect on real world actions.

God of Path:

The_Kodu:

Nice use of reducto Ad abserdium however that can be broken down the other way by simply asking "So all women should be afraid and have bodyguards about just in case ?"

Infact the argument can be turned against itself as rescuing the damsel is protecting them is it not ?
If it is seen as sexist to help someone in the Damsels in distress case to follow their own desires, discrediting the damsel ball, then that is sexist ?
The idea of the damsel ball removes the concept of free will from the "damsel" and infact implies that inaction is more preferable infact ignoring the "damsel's" own desire and opinion on the matter in doing so it actually does just what it was set out to demonstate games doing, it turns characters into objects by ignoring said characters own wishes.

So GTA V that lead to a huge amount of shootings and violence in the streets right ?
Wait it didn't ?
So claiming connections and links without any solid evidence base is a really bad idea ?
your suggestion that violence against women in video games leads to real world domestic violence needs some kind of backing. This is also remembering that 90% of said cases in games are actually done by the villain. The 10% being cases where it's being called violence against women but as mentioned before it was the female being the aggressor initially and with the Male defending and as such is technically self defence.

Are we now meant to follow the actions of Videogame villains ?
If so why aren't there evil scientists creating robotic killer animals everywhere ?
[sic]

Again, I do not see how you have reached the conclusion that the argument can reduced to "So all women should be afraid and have bodyguards." What do women have to fear that would necessitate a constant bodyguard? I think we can both agree that "women are equal to men" does not logically lead one to conclude that "women are afraid," or even that "women should have bodyguards." That leads me to conclude that you drew this reduction from "women need protecting." Note that I do not necessarily espouse this opinion, however, I believe that the (reformed) statement "some women may need protection," is not untrue. It is know that there are some areas, even in well developed nations, where it is inadvisable to walk alone after dark if you are a woman. A woman in this situation is ostensibly in need of protection. I do not see how it would follow that "all women should be afraid and have bodyguards about just in case," simply because sometimes women are in a situation where they have reason to fear for their safety.

As are some men. Remember there are places that guys wouldn't want to go alone. Possibly for different reasons but the threat of violence in one form is there.

God of Path:

It is not sexist to acknowledge that, unfortunately, these situations do exist. Protecting a person in need of protection (for whatever reason) has no inherent ties one sex or another. However, the damsel in distress trope deals with the dis-empowerment of women so that they may act as an object. Offense is not taken so much to the fact that they are being saved from this dis-empowerment, but to the fact that otherwise powerful women are stripped of their power and agency, and are unable to act but to be saved. To me, at least, the re-empowerment after they have been saved only serves to reinforce how powerless they were made.

Except this can be done with almost any character.
To say that the character can't go beyond being a Damsel is half the issue.
Was Splosion Man a Male Damsel in Distress in Ms Splosion man because he wasn't able to free himself ?
Was Alyx in Halftlife 2 with the Vortigon ritual thing ? Was Gordon Freeman as he wasn't able to stop Gman taking him back only the Vortigons were ?

God of Path:

Now I must challenge you in your assertion either Ms. Sarkeesian or I professed that sexism in games causes real world sexism or even real world violence against women. (Though there is an argument to be made for Ms. Sarkeesian's abuse as an example of real world violence stemming from pointing out sexism in video games.) Like her, I only posit that the repeated dis-empowerment of women in video games (and other media) contributes to a society wherein women are perceived (and too often treated) as less equal. It would be absurd to think that a media portrayal of something has any sort of causal effect on real world actions.

I therefore present the counter argument with the same level of facts that Video games actually teach respect for Women in that only the villains normally show violence to women. I also posit that games promote people sticking up for and defending other people as was shown by those who flooded to support Ms Sarkesian's kickstarter to show the abusers they wouldn't win.

My posit being without evidence anything you put forward is the same level of argument used by those claiming violent video games cause violence in the real world.

The_Kodu:

Except this can be done with almost any character.
To say that the character can't go beyond being a Damsel is half the issue.
Was Splosion Man a Male Damsel in Distress in Ms Splosion man because he wasn't able to free himself ?
Was Alyx in Halftlife 2 with the Vortigon ritual thing ? Was Gordon Freeman as he wasn't able to stop Gman taking him back only the Vortigons were ?

You get back to me so quickly, it's wonderful holding a conversation with you!

I think that, yes, in the cases you listed, a character was dis-empowered to move the plot of the game, the usual culprit in the damsel in distress trope. However, it is also worth noting that relatively few games use men as "damsels in distress" when compared to the overwhelming number that do so for women.

I also think it must be observed that simply because men can also be victims to some of the dis-empowering things that women can be victims to, does not mean that the injustice is somehow equalized and therefore okay. Too, women are more predisposed to these events than men (frequently by a large margin) in most societies on Earth today.

God of Path:
I think that, yes, in the cases you listed, a character was dis-empowered to move the plot of the game, the usual culprit in the damsel in distress trope. However, it is also worth noting that relatively few games use men as "damsels in distress" when compared to the overwhelming number that do so for women.

I also think it must be observed that simply because men can also be victims to some of the dis-empowering things that women can be victims to, does not mean that the injustice is somehow equalized and therefore okay. Too, women are more predisposed to these events than men (frequently by a large margin) in most societies on Earth today.

You know, there's a good reason that men are rarely "damsels in distress": Men are naturally stronger than women. That's just a biological fact, no matter what feminists say. Now, occasionally, a dude's brother gets kidnapped and he goes out to save him. But it's insanely rare for a women to have to save her man because it's unlikely. If a man is so weak that his girlfriend has to save him, how neutered must he be? (And there's a good reason Samus is never shown with any form of love interest: It would kill her character; she's a badass and a relationship would just complicate her badassery.)

God of Path:

The_Kodu:

Except this can be done with almost any character.
To say that the character can't go beyond being a Damsel is half the issue.
Was Splosion Man a Male Damsel in Distress in Ms Splosion man because he wasn't able to free himself ?
Was Alyx in Halftlife 2 with the Vortigon ritual thing ? Was Gordon Freeman as he wasn't able to stop Gman taking him back only the Vortigons were ?

You get back to me so quickly, it's wonderful holding a conversation with you!

I think that, yes, in the cases you listed, a character was dis-empowered to move the plot of the game, the usual culprit in the damsel in distress trope. However, it is also worth noting that relatively few games use men as "damsels in distress" when compared to the overwhelming number that do so for women.

I also think it must be observed that simply because men can also be victims to some of the dis-empowering things that women can be victims to, does not mean that the injustice is somehow equalized and therefore okay. Too, women are more predisposed to these events than men (frequently by a large margin) in most societies on Earth today.

The point being the actual reasoning behind the trope.
Is it some grand plan to show Women as dis-empowered ?
Is it simply a story feature from the distant past and being used based on the past ? e.g. St George and the Dragon.
Is it (and sick bags on stand by) the developers trying to tell a love conquers all story with the kidnapping being the obstacle for the hero to overcome ?

Without evidence claiming the trope is harmful is problematic. The fact the trope exists isn't enough reason to vilify any game for using it. Heck you could argue due to a lack of female protagonists you don't get to see the story played out the other way round anywhere near as much so it could merely be using the kidnapping as a love conquers all story and not care about gender.

Also note I said different events in said areas can befall guys. So you are right in societies on earth Women are more likely to suffer one set of events if they go to a seedy area. Just the same as guys in societies on earth are just as likely to suffer a different set of also unpleasant events if they go to the same seedy areas.

Big_Willie_Styles:
Men are naturally stronger than women. That's just a biological fact, no matter what feminists say...

You cannot be serious? Men being biologically different from women in no way accounts for the fact that women are dis-empowered more than men. Relative power to begin with has no bearing on the trope, meaning that even if a woman is "less powerful" than a man, her dis-empowerment is not in any way diminished. She is still dis-empowered.

And by the way, I'm not sure about you, but I think most people (at least those here) are feminists. So to claim that "no matter what the feminists say" is asinine. Feminist simply means that one believes in the self-evident proposition that men and women are equal. To claim that men and women are not equal because of some biological differences is akin to claiming black people are not equal to others because they tend to have a slightly different facial structure and skin pigmentation, or that a homosexual person is in some way less equal because of their sexual orientation.

To wit, is there even someone who is not a feminist in this thread? I challenge anyone to claim (and defend their claim) that women are not entitled to equal rights to men. That person would truly not be a feminist. However. I strongly suspect that there is no person willing to make this claim, as if they did they would be ridiculed out of any civilized discussion. If you believe, like me, that men and women are entitled to equal rights, then you, my friend, are a feminist.

The_Kodu:

The point being the actual reasoning behind the trope.
Is it some grand plan to show Women as dis-empowered ?
Is it simply a story feature from the distant past and being used based on the past ? e.g. St George and the Dragon...

Aha! You've really gotten to the meat (and your best argument yet) here! You are exactly correct, there is no "grand plan" to show women as less equal, and I'm sure that no game developer has thought to him or herself "let's make a sexist game!" And yes, I think that this trope exists a lot in part due to our cultural heritage.

However, there is evidence that these kinds of benevolent sexism (that is, not overtly sexist, but reinforcing of gender norms and stereotypes - women being inferior than men being one of these -- so, "victimless" sexism) do have a significant impact on how people act. If you'd like I can post any of the myriad studies evidencing this, but I'm not sure how interested everyone would be in actually reading these (stodgy scholarly articles).

In summary, the damsel in distress trope exemplifies benevolent sexism, which when exposed to a population has significant deleterious effects, among which are the reinforcement of gendered norms and stereotypes, among which is the notion that women are less equal than men.

God of Path:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Men are naturally stronger than women. That's just a biological fact, no matter what feminists say...

You cannot be serious? Men being biologically different from women in no way accounts for the fact that women are dis-empowered more than men. Relative power to begin with has no bearing on the trope, meaning that even if a woman is "less powerful" than a man, her dis-empowerment is not in any way diminished. She is still dis-empowered.

And by the way, I'm not sure about you, but I think most people (at least those here) are feminists. So to claim that "no matter what the feminists say" is asinine. Feminist simply means that one believes in the self-evident proposition that men and women are equal. To claim that men and women are not equal because of some biological differences is akin to claiming black people are not equal to others because they tend to have a slightly different facial structure and skin pigmentation, or that a homosexual person is in some way less equal because of their sexual orientation.

To wit, is there even someone who is not a feminist in this thread? I challenge anyone to claim (and defend their claim) that women are not entitled to equal rights to men. That person would truly not be a feminist. However. I strongly suspect that there is no person willing to make this claim, as if they did they would be ridiculed out of any civilized discussion. If you believe, like me, that men and women are entitled to equal rights, then you, my friend, are a feminist.

The_Kodu:

The point being the actual reasoning behind the trope.
Is it some grand plan to show Women as dis-empowered ?
Is it simply a story feature from the distant past and being used based on the past ? e.g. St George and the Dragon...

Aha! You've really gotten to the meat (and your best argument yet) here! You are exactly correct, there is no "grand plan" to show women as less equal, and I'm sure that no game developer has thought to him or herself "let's make a sexist game!" And yes, I think that this trope exists a lot in part due to our cultural heritage.

However, there is evidence that these kinds of benevolent sexism (that is, not overtly sexist, but reinforcing of gender norms and stereotypes - women being inferior than men being one of these -- so, "victimless" sexism) do have a significant impact on how people act. If you'd like I can post any of the myriad studies evidencing this, but I'm not sure how interested everyone would be in actually reading these (stodgy scholarly articles).

In summary, the damsel in distress trope exemplifies benevolent sexism, which when exposed to a population has significant deleterious effects, among which are the reinforcement of gendered norms and stereotypes, among which is the notion that women are less equal than men.

The word feminist doesn't mean that anymore. It means something else. Few serious people like to associate themselves with that label because it is bloody toxic.

Big_Willie_Styles:

The word feminist doesn't mean that anymore. It means something else. Few serious people like to associate themselves with that label because it is bloody toxic.

I'm not entirely sure where you get the misconception of the definition of feminism. Here are a few sources citing otherwise. And for the record, I do not think that associating myself with the belief that men and women are deserving of equal rights to be "bloody toxic."

Google (feminist): https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+feminist&rlz=1C1ASUM_enUS563US563&oq=define%3A+feminist&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2641j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

Google (feminism): https://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+feminist&rlz=1C1ASUM_enUS563US563&oq=define%3A+feminist&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.2641j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=define:+feminism

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

Merriam-Webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism

Free Online Dictionary: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/feminist

Cambridge Dictionary: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/feminism

The Oxford Dictionary: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/feminism

In fact, I can find no source citing a different definition of feminism...

I believe the only thing that's "bloody toxic" is your misunderstanding of what a feminist is.

God of Path:
snip

Yeah, because a dictionary definition can TOTALLY eclipse an ideology.

Even atheists are fed up with feminists. Madonna refuses to refer to herself as a feminist, preferring the much nicer sounding "humanist."

Modern feminism is toxic.

Big_Willie_Styles:

God of Path:
snip

Yeah, because a dictionary definition can TOTALLY eclipse an ideology.

Even atheists are fed up with feminists. Madonna refuses to refer to herself as a feminist, preferring the much nicer sounding "humanist."

Modern feminism is toxic.

And Madonna's personal preference of label can eclipse an ideology?

There is no reputable, scholarly source that will cite a different definition than the one I provided. You make base generalizations and provide no evidence whatsoever. Is Madonna now a modern dictate for our culture and language? How can you possibly speak for all atheists, or even most atheists? Do you have even a shred of evidence, other than your personal beliefs? At best, you've provided an anecdote about a celebrity.

I'm not sure what you think feminism is (other than bad, that much you've made perfectly clear), but you provide no alternate definition, give no source, and provide no reasoning for your conclusions. As a great atheist (and a staunch feminist, may I add) once said, "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

God of Path:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Men are naturally stronger than women. That's just a biological fact, no matter what feminists say...

The_Kodu:

The point being the actual reasoning behind the trope.
Is it some grand plan to show Women as dis-empowered ?
Is it simply a story feature from the distant past and being used based on the past ? e.g. St George and the Dragon...

Aha! You've really gotten to the meat (and your best argument yet) here! You are exactly correct, there is no "grand plan" to show women as less equal, and I'm sure that no game developer has thought to him or herself "let's make a sexist game!" And yes, I think that this trope exists a lot in part due to our cultural heritage.

However, there is evidence that these kinds of benevolent sexism (that is, not overtly sexist, but reinforcing of gender norms and stereotypes - women being inferior than men being one of these -- so, "victimless" sexism) do have a significant impact on how people act. If you'd like I can post any of the myriad studies evidencing this, but I'm not sure how interested everyone would be in actually reading these (stodgy scholarly articles).

In summary, the damsel in distress trope exemplifies benevolent sexism, which when exposed to a population has significant deleterious effects, among which are the reinforcement of gendered norms and stereotypes, among which is the notion that women are less equal than men.

Actually I think I'd like to see these papers as I've had a small immersion in social science research methodology so I'd be curious to see how substantial the evidence backing it is.

If as you are saying this is benevolent sexism then couldn't it be claimed those who rushed to defend Anita Sarkeesian are also sexist ? Surely she should be just as capable as fighting her own battles as say Jim Sterling who regularly says he receives threats or that one Call of Duty developer who received death threats for changing a weapon's stats ?

So Anita Sarkeesian is the Feminist Version of George Lucas Episode One.

God of Path:

In summary, the damsel in distress trope exemplifies benevolent sexism, which when exposed to a population has significant deleterious effects, among which are the reinforcement of gendered norms and stereotypes, among which is the notion that women are less equal than men.

How does a trope, a plot device, target a gender?

By the logic of your argument, if I play a game like Oddworld, where there's 100 men to save, I should be discriminatory of men.

Also, by the very logic you are talking about, I have to accept Jack Thompson's argument that games cause people to become violent.

Also, you have no academic sources to back you up, no research, just your opinion.

So I'm going to ask you one simple question. The University of Glasgow did a study of 11,000 children playing video games.

PDF

Can you refute this study, where 11000 children saw minimal changing of their behavior based on gaming for 10 years? Or should I accept this idea of yours that games reinforce gender roles in society based on nothing more than your opinion?

Gindil:

How does a trope, a plot device, target a gender?

By the logic of your argument, if I play a game like Oddworld, where there's 100 men to save, I should be discriminatory of men.

Also, by the very logic you are talking about, I have to accept Jack Thompson's argument that games cause people to become violent.

Also, you have no academic sources to back you up, no research, just your opinion.

So I'm going to ask you one simple question. The University of Glasgow did a study of 11,000 children playing video games.

PDF

Can you refute this study, where 11000 children saw minimal changing of their behavior based on gaming for 10 years? Or should I accept this idea of yours that games reinforce gender roles in society based on nothing more than your opinion?

I cannot (nor have I claimed to) refute the evidence you provide. Indeed, it is quite solid. However, the logic I used provides for no causal link between a media source and an identifiable action. This would be ludicrous (as I stated preciously). Instead, I merely posited that continued exposure to such tropes reinforces ideals that women are less equal. Let the evidence commence:

Implicit and Explicit Consequences of Exposure to Violent and Misogynous Rap Music, http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/5/2/133.short (not video games, but evidence of exposure bias nonetheless)

Next Generation Ambivalent Sexism , http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-010-9747-9#page-1 (see "...demonstrate causality in context, revealing impact on targets and the prescriptive power of ambivalent ideologies."

Discrimination against Women: Prevalence, Consequences, Remedies, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED417275 (ancillary, but related)

Everyday Sexism: Evidence for Its Incidence, Nature, and Psychological Impact From Three Daily Diary Studies, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0022-4537.00200/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false (incidents like these are increased in frequency when a population is exposed to persistent, cultural sexist ideology)

Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women's performance, http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/93/5/764/ (the discussed trope is an example of such benevolent sexism)

The Effect of Exposure to Benevolent Sexism on Women's Task and Relational Self-Descriptions, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-009-9699-0 (more real world effect of exposure to benevolent sexism)

The Effects of System Threat on Attraction to Women Who Embody Benevolent Sexist Ideals, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/20.extract#

Exposure to Benevolent Sexism and Complementary Gender Stereotypes: Consequences for Specific and Diffuse Forms of System Justification, http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/88/3/498/

The burden of benevolent sexism: how it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.270/abstract

The_Kodu:

Actually I think I'd like to see these papers as I've had a small immersion in social science research methodology so I'd be curious to see how substantial the evidence backing it is.

Hope you find these interesting. I can pull some more if anyone wants them. It's wonderful to see people using peer-reviewed science!

edit: Sincerest apologies to anyone who cannot access some of the above articles. I realized after I posted that not everyone may have the benefit of a university's subscription to every journal ever.

God of Path:

Gindil:

How does a trope, a plot device, target a gender?

By the logic of your argument, if I play a game like Oddworld, where there's 100 men to save, I should be discriminatory of men.

Also, by the very logic you are talking about, I have to accept Jack Thompson's argument that games cause people to become violent.

Also, you have no academic sources to back you up, no research, just your opinion.

So I'm going to ask you one simple question. The University of Glasgow did a study of 11,000 children playing video games.

PDF

Can you refute this study, where 11000 children saw minimal changing of their behavior based on gaming for 10 years? Or should I accept this idea of yours that games reinforce gender roles in society based on nothing more than your opinion?

I cannot (nor have I claimed to) refute the evidence you provide. Indeed, it is quite solid. However, the logic I used provides for no causal link between a media source and an identifiable action. This would be ludicrous (as I stated preciously). Instead, I merely posited that continued exposure to such tropes reinforces ideals that women are less equal. Let the evidence commence:

Implicit and Explicit Consequences of Exposure to Violent and Misogynous Rap Music, http://gpi.sagepub.com/content/5/2/133.short (not video games, but evidence of exposure bias nonetheless)

I'm sorry, but what? It's been 30 years of rap music (being kind here since it started in the 70s and 80s as more political statements) and usually rap music are people speaking out against poverty and crime in very low areas of commerce and you're saying that makes people more likely to commit crimes instead of the austerity measures of their situations?

Next Generation Ambivalent Sexism , http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-010-9747-9#page-1 (see "...demonstrate causality in context, revealing impact on targets and the prescriptive power of ambivalent ideologies."

Discrimination against Women: Prevalence, Consequences, Remedies, http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED417275 (ancillary, but related)

Everyday Sexism: Evidence for Its Incidence, Nature, and Psychological Impact From Three Daily Diary Studies, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0022-4537.00200/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false (incidents like these are increased in frequency when a population is exposed to persistent, cultural sexist ideology)

Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women's performance, http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/93/5/764/ (the discussed trope is an example of such benevolent sexism)

The Effect of Exposure to Benevolent Sexism on Women's Task and Relational Self-Descriptions, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-009-9699-0 (more real world effect of exposure to benevolent sexism)

The Effects of System Threat on Attraction to Women Who Embody Benevolent Sexist Ideals, http://pss.sagepub.com/content/19/1/20.extract#

Exposure to Benevolent Sexism and Complementary Gender Stereotypes: Consequences for Specific and Diffuse Forms of System Justification, http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/88/3/498/

The burden of benevolent sexism: how it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ejsp.270/abstract

All of this is undermined with the fact that a psychiatrist has gone on to make counter arguments that said the same thing about the comics industry:

http://io9.com/5985199/how-one-mans-lies-almost-destroyed-the-comics-industry

Which again points me to the study that I've pointed out. If I accept your arguments that games cause misogyny, I have to accept the same premise that games also cause violence and that entertainment has created a number of problems in society.

Even then, people found that body types affected people to want to either aspire to be a person or that they'd envy such. Those "peer reviewed" studies seem unable to explain without bias the very thing we're talking about which are plot devices and other such aspects of story.

Gindil:
I'm sorry, but what? It's been 30 years of rap music (being kind here since it started in the 70s and 80s as more political statements) and usually rap music are people speaking out against poverty and crime in very low areas of commerce and you're saying that makes people more likely to commit crimes instead of the austerity measures of their situations?[sic]

Did I say that? Because I reread my previous post and I most certainly said nothing of the sort. I also reread the article just to make sure and it doesn't espouse that kind of thinking and it does not. Can you point out to me the where exactly someone said "[rap music] makes people more likely to commit crimes..." because I'm having trouble finding any sort of study that with those sorts of findings.

Gindil:

Which again points me to the study that I've pointed out. If I accept your arguments that games cause misogyny, I have to accept the same premise that games also cause violence and that entertainment has created a number of problems in society.

Please do NOT accept that games cause misogyny. I thought I had gone to great lengths to explain that media DOES NOT CAUSE ONE TO ACT IN A CERTAIN WAY. No study I posted claims this, and I think this whole argument would benefit from people not repeatedly using the same straw-man in attempt to discredit these findings. If you had taken the time to really peruse the articles I linked (not, mind you, a non-peer-review piece like the one you linked- it is NOT a study of any sort), I think you would find that none of them claim that media causes misogyny. As I have said before, and will again (until people stop misinterpreting my argument to make it more palatable to refute), these media serve to reinforce harmful ideologies. These media DO NOT CAUSE ANYONE TO BE SEXIST.

God of Path:

Gindil:
I'm sorry, but what? It's been 30 years of rap music (being kind here since it started in the 70s and 80s as more political statements) and usually rap music are people speaking out against poverty and crime in very low areas of commerce and you're saying that makes people more likely to commit crimes instead of the austerity measures of their situations?[sic]

Did I say that? Because I reread my previous post and I most certainly said nothing of the sort. I also reread the article just to make sure and it doesn't espouse that kind of thinking and it does not. Can you point out to me the where exactly someone said "[rap music] makes people more likely to commit crimes..." because I'm having trouble finding any sort of study that with those sorts of findings.

So you expect me not to see a loaded abstract and not see the confirmation bias inherent in this study when it's right there in the abstract?

In two experiments, primed subjects were exposed to violent and misogynistic rap music and control subjects were exposed to popular music. Experiment 1 showed that violent and misogynistic rap music increased the automatic associations underlying evaluative racial stereotypes in high and low prejudiced subjects alike. By contrast, explicit stereotyping was dependent on priming and subjects' prejudice level.

This is a useless study meant to confirm a bias against forms of music and does nothing to understand the various messages carried in rap music from its history or anything now such as by Immortal Technique.

Gindil:

Which again points me to the study that I've pointed out. If I accept your arguments that games cause misogyny, I have to accept the same premise that games also cause violence and that entertainment has created a number of problems in society.

Please do NOT accept that games cause misogyny. I thought I had gone to great lengths to explain that media DOES NOT CAUSE ONE TO ACT IN A CERTAIN WAY. No study I posted claims this, and I think this whole argument would benefit from people not repeatedly using the same straw-man in attempt to discredit these findings. If you had taken the time to really peruse the articles I linked (not, mind you, a non-peer-review piece like the one you linked- it is NOT a study of any sort), I think you would find that none of them claim that media causes misogyny. As I have said before, and will again (until people stop misinterpreting my argument to make it more palatable to refute), these media serve to reinforce harmful ideologies. These media DO NOT CAUSE ANYONE TO BE SEXIST.

[/quote]

Well, all of those studies talk about "benevolent sexism" as if that's something that actually happens. So what in the hell does that really mean unless you're trying to say that sexism is everywhere? Unless these studies are talking about "chivalry", they show some very poorly thought out abstracts which don't do anything to improve the conversation and just reaffirm the bias.

Also, the study I did was a longitudinal study done over 10 years. So trying to take down one for the other is really pointless. Those seem to be just as bad as Craig Anderson's "research" in violence in video games that games cause violence.

Again, by your own statement, I have to accept that the media we consume would reinforce murder just as I would have to accept that they reinforce "harmful ideologies". You can't have one without the other. Either games do so or not and those studies don't do anything to change that longitudinal study's findings that children over 10 years have had minimal effects from the media they consume.

Gindil:
So you expect me not to see a loaded abstract and not see the confirmation bias inherent in this study when it's right there in the abstract?

This is a useless study meant to confirm a bias against forms of music and does nothing to understand the various messages carried in rap music from its history or anything now such as by Immortal Technique.
[sic]

It seems you may not know what the process of peer-review is. By this process, other scientists whose field of expertise the study falls under review and vet the material published (as decided by the journal). To discredit a study as "useless" one would need not only expertise in the field but also knowledge of the methods employed (and any flaws therein- those discredit the study, not a "loaded" abstract). However, this is not accessible merely from reading the abstract. To claim knowledge of a study merely from an abstract (and to make a judgement based thereupon) is akin to claiming knowledge of the United States' Constitution, having only read the Preamble.

As you do not provide much evidence as to how the studies are biased, or towards which conclusion they are biased, I see no reason to so thoroughly discredit a study of which you appear to have only read the abstract.

Gindil:
Well, all of those studies talk about "benevolent sexism" as if that's something that actually happens. So what in the hell does that really mean unless you're trying to say that sexism is everywhere? Unless these studies are talking about "chivalry", they show some very poorly thought out abstracts which don't do anything to improve the conversation and just reaffirm the bias.

Again, by your own statement, I have to accept that the media we consume would reinforce murder just as I would have to accept that they reinforce "harmful ideologies". You can't have one without the other. Either games do so or not and those studies don't do anything to change that longitudinal study's findings that children over 10 years have had minimal effects from the media they consume.
[sic]

Not having knowledge of a phenomenon is a poor reason to decree that it does not happen, and even poorer a reason to discredit it. Also, not all of these studies examine benevolent sexism alone.

In fact, I know of no reason why one would be inclined to accept that media "reinforce murder" if one also accepts that media reinforce ideologies harmful to women. I am unfamiliar with research done on the effects of media to reinforce violent ideologies (which is what I assume you mean when you say "murder"). However, without substantial evidence, it is equally plausible to assume that there is no correlation between media's capacity to reinforce sexist ideals and media's ability to reinforce violent ones. That is to say, if there is evidence to support the theory that media reinforces violent ideologies, and as I said, I am unfamiliar with any such studies.

God of Path:

Gindil:
So you expect me not to see a loaded abstract and not see the confirmation bias inherent in this study when it's right there in the abstract?

This is a useless study meant to confirm a bias against forms of music and does nothing to understand the various messages carried in rap music from its history or anything now such as by Immortal Technique.
[sic]

It seems you may not know what the process of peer-review is. By this process, other scientists whose field of expertise the study falls under review and vet the material published (as decided by the journal). To discredit a study as "useless" one would need not only expertise in the field but also knowledge of the methods employed (and any flaws therein- those discredit the study, not a "loaded" abstract). However, this is not accessible merely from reading the abstract. To claim knowledge of a study merely from an abstract (and to make a judgement based thereupon) is akin to claiming knowledge of the United States' Constitution, having only read the Preamble.

So... A bunch of feminists get together and make reviews that only they care about without any form of study outside of their field?

Have you ever heard of Elsevier, or any other place where scientists and academia post their work to be recognized and discussed?

As you do not provide much evidence as to how the studies are biased, or towards which conclusion they are biased, I see no reason to so thoroughly discredit a study of which you appear to have only read the abstract.

Can't read the studies since they're behind a paywall. It just seems I have to pay $30 for each one and they're made loaded.

Gindil:
Well, all of those studies talk about "benevolent sexism" as if that's something that actually happens. So what in the hell does that really mean unless you're trying to say that sexism is everywhere? Unless these studies are talking about "chivalry", they show some very poorly thought out abstracts which don't do anything to improve the conversation and just reaffirm the bias.

Again, by your own statement, I have to accept that the media we consume would reinforce murder just as I would have to accept that they reinforce "harmful ideologies". You can't have one without the other. Either games do so or not and those studies don't do anything to change that longitudinal study's findings that children over 10 years have had minimal effects from the media they consume.
[sic]

Not having knowledge of a phenomenon is a poor reason to decree that it does not happen, and even poorer a reason to discredit it. Also, not all of these studies examine benevolent sexism alone.

The burden of proof is on you. You're making the claim that this "benevolent sexism" is harmful to people. A ten year study seems to show something besides what you suggest. You can see that study. I can also point to the work of the University of Texas in regards to violence in video games, which maintains that same position. Your peer-reviewed studies don't seem to be as objective so why should I believe these presuppositional arguments?

In fact, I know of no reason why one would be inclined to accept that media "reinforce murder" if one also accepts that media reinforce ideologies harmful to women. I am unfamiliar with research done on the effects of media to reinforce violent ideologies (which is what I assume you mean when you say "murder"). However, without substantial evidence, it is equally plausible to assume that there is no correlation between media's capacity to reinforce sexist ideals and media's ability to reinforce violent ones. That is to say, if there is evidence to support the theory that media reinforces violent ideologies, and as I said, I am unfamiliar with any such studies.

As stated before, Anita's argument falls into saying how "games promote misogyny" which you've translated into stereotypical gender roles. Jack Thompson's argument claims that "games promote violence". The "solution" to both is a form of censorship of the medium with JT's being government censorship while Anita's is more of a public shaming event.

I've already pointed to one. Here's a few others:

The APA

Countries and violence to video games

People have been trying to say how FPS games try to increase violence. As I've stated more than once, if I accept that argument of games promoting your belief in "sexist media/gender roles/etc", I have to accept that games also cause violence even though the facts say otherwise. Somehow, games are supposed to influence our behavior but only in the negative and even though the research indicates that this is not actually true, these two arguments have the same moral outcry that somehow these games can influence behavior. That's why I have yet to be impressed by the argument. If you believe that rescuing women in games is somehow a bad thing, it's your burden to prove that it does. I have yet to really see anything beat a longitudinal study on games that suggests that children do indeed understand the difference between reality and fiction and why rescue plots are in video games.

Gindil:
So... A bunch of feminists get together and make reviews that only they care about without any form of study outside of their field?

Have you ever heard of Elsevier, or any other place where scientists and academia post their work to be recognized and discussed?

You continue to make claims lacking evidence (or rationale), and you continue to make unjustifiable, invalid assumptions.

If you'll point me to evidence that being a feminist can bias a study, then you may have the ghost of a point. May I remind you, that being a feminist simply means that you believe in the self-evident proposition that men and women deserve equal rights. I do not see how that would impact the science we discuss.

Do you have a point about Elsevier or are you inquiring to my personal knowledge? I'm afraid I don't see how it is relevant, though I do know of Elsevier.

Gindil:
Can't read the studies since they're behind a paywall.[sic] It just seems I have to pay $30 for each one and they're made loaded.

Again you seem to have failed to elaborate on how these studies are "loaded." However, you seem fervent in your beliefs and knowledge on the subject matter, so a mere $30 for something you find so interesting seems little to pay, relatively. Regardless of your willingness to pay, there still has been no significant evidence provided to discredit these studies.

Gindil:
The burden of proof is on you. You're making the claim that this "benevolent sexism" is harmful to people. A ten year study seems to show something besides what you suggest. You can see that study. I can also point to the work of the University of Texas in regards to violence in video games, which maintains that same position. Your peer-reviewed studies don't seem to be as objective so why should I believe these presuppositional arguments?

I have provided ample evidence to support my claim that benevolent sexism reinforces harmful ideologies. I call these ideologies harmful not because they cause physical harm to any one person, but because they reinforce ideals that perceive women as inferior to men, indirectly harming all people through the repression of roughly 50 percent of the population.

I do not see how the studies you've posted refute the findings of those I cited. You've cited a number of studies which show no correlation between violence in video games and violence in life. I do not contest those findings. However, what I fail to see (and what you have continued to fail to show) is how those studies show contrary evidence to those I cited. Those studies review reinforcement of harmful ideologies, NOT violence. I still cannot see how the two are related. Not only are the purveys of the studies different, but their experiment methodology varies vastly as well. To draw conclusions about one from the other would be unfounded, unscientific, and incorrect.

Gindil:
...if I accept that argument of games promoting your belief in "sexist media/gender roles/etc", I have to accept that games also cause violence

The two arguments are logically unrelated. Despite your continued insistence that they are, you have yet to provide a compelling reason why this is true.

Gindil:
The "solution" to both is a form of censorship of the medium with JT's being government censorship while Anita's is more of a public shaming event.

Perhaps Mr. Thompson thought that censorship of the medium of video games was necessary, but I've watched many of Ms. Sarkeesian's videos and she has never claimed anything even remotely like that. I don't think she ever called for some of those games to be publicly shamed (as you put it). Her show strove to promote awareness of feminist issues, not to shame certain video games. I do not know where that misconception arose.

Gindil:
Somehow, games are supposed to influence our behavior but only in the negative and even though the research indicates that this is not actually true, these two arguments have the same moral outcry that somehow these games can influence behavior. [sic]

I was unaware that anyone was making an argument which consisted of a "moral outcry that somehow these games can influence behavior." I was also unaware of anyone claiming that video games only influenced behavior only in a negative fashion.

God of Path:

Gindil:
So... A bunch of feminists get together and make reviews that only they care about without any form of study outside of their field?

Have you ever heard of Elsevier, or any other place where scientists and academia post their work to be recognized and discussed?

You continue to make claims lacking evidence (or rationale), and you continue to make unjustifiable, invalid assumptions.

This wasn't a claim nor a rebuttal. It was pointing out academic journal places. Not everything is somehow an attack on your character and that's an odd position to take.

Gindil:
Can't read the studies since they're behind a paywall.[sic] It just seems I have to pay $30 for each one and they're made loaded.

Again you seem to have failed to elaborate on how these studies are "loaded." However, you seem fervent in your beliefs and knowledge on the subject matter, so a mere $30 for something you find so interesting seems little to pay, relatively. Regardless of your willingness to pay, there still has been no significant evidence provided to discredit these studies.

They're one sided views on certain topics where the only ones critiquing them are those that agree with the studies. That would be bias. I already deal with Anita Sarkeesian's one sided view of events. It's your job to show how these studies aren't presuppositional since the very FACT remains that I don't accept your claim that culture is sexist. Proving it with studies that don't do much to increase knowledge and are hidden behind paywalls with loaded abstracts seems to point to really poor data IMO.

Gindil:
The burden of proof is on you. You're making the claim that this "benevolent sexism" is harmful to people. A ten year study seems to show something besides what you suggest. You can see that study. I can also point to the work of the University of Texas in regards to violence in video games, which maintains that same position. Your peer-reviewed studies don't seem to be as objective so why should I believe these presuppositional arguments?

I have provided ample evidence to support my claim that benevolent sexism reinforces harmful ideologies. I call these ideologies harmful not because they cause physical harm to any one person, but because they reinforce ideals that perceive women as inferior to men, indirectly harming all people through the repression of roughly 50 percent of the population.

Emphasis mine. I've heard the same thing from Fredrick Wertham and people such as Jack Thompson. So again, I do not believe you. In fact, Fredrick Wertham had this to say:

In the case notes, Wertham commented that the images of strong women reinforced "violent revenge fantasies against men and possibly creates these violent anti-men (therefore homosexual) fantasies. . . . Sheena and the other comic book women such as Wonder Woman are very bad ideals for them." Yet Wertham omits from Seduction-and seemingly from his analysis-a revealing story about Dorothy's everyday reality.

So it's logic time... If society has not been corrupted by the claims of Frederic Wertham who claims that a strong female character could corrupt children, why should I believe the reverse gender notion from you, that weaker women reinforce negative stereotypes?

I do not see how the studies you've posted refute the findings of those I cited. You've cited a number of studies which show no correlation between violence in video games and violence in life. I do not contest those findings. However, what I fail to see (and what you have continued to fail to show) is how those studies show contrary evidence to those I cited. Those studies review reinforcement of harmful ideologies, NOT violence. I still cannot see how the two are related. Not only are the purveys of the studies different, but their experiment methodology varies vastly as well. To draw conclusions about one from the other would be unfounded, unscientific, and incorrect.

I've done two things. Post a study that shows that kids aren't affected by these "tropes" and second, I've shown another moral guardian that had to lie to make their points. Your studies rely on presuppositional arguments where someone has to believe they're true before anything else is debated. I'd call it a Gish Gallop but facts remain facts. There's no evidence of misogyny or violence in the 11,000 children over ten years. Can you refute that and show something superior without an ideological backing?

Gindil:
...if I accept that argument of games promoting your belief in "sexist media/gender roles/etc", I have to accept that games also cause violence

The two arguments are logically unrelated. Despite your continued insistence that they are, you have yet to provide a compelling reason why this is true.

They're both social constructs. I've already explained that if fictional games could cause one, they cause the other. You've yet to find a compelling reason why the arguments against misogyny haven't been the same as those of violence nor why Anita relies on the same rhetorical arguments as Jack Thompson.

Gindil:
The "solution" to both is a form of censorship of the medium with JT's being government censorship while Anita's is more of a public shaming event.

Perhaps Mr. Thompson thought that censorship of the medium of video games was necessary, but I've watched many of Ms. Sarkeesian's videos and she has never claimed anything even remotely like that. I don't think she ever called for some of those games to be publicly shamed (as you put it). Her show strove to promote awareness of feminist issues, not to shame certain video games. I do not know where that misconception arose.

She promotes self censorship, ala Hillary Clinton. Shame developers into not using a trope and make a far inferior product based on her opinion. And the fact that she implies that Shigeru Miyamoto is sexist for using a "sexist" trope, ignoring that a woman made Bayonetta, or how she quote mined Tohru Iwatani, that misconception has always been there since Anita knows nothing about Japanese culture to really comment.

Gindil:
Somehow, games are supposed to influence our behavior but only in the negative and even though the research indicates that this is not actually true, these two arguments have the same moral outcry that somehow these games can influence behavior. [sic]

I was unaware that anyone was making an argument which consisted of a "moral outcry that somehow these games can influence behavior." I was also unaware of anyone claiming that video games only influenced behavior only in a negative fashion.

Then pay attention to Anita's videos and see the language utilized to make gamers misogynist. She makes assumptions that are unfounded unless she can read minds better than Jean Grey.

LifeCharacter:

Karadalis:
And she hasnt used a single one of these PS3 or Xbox 360 games in her videos.

Infact most of what she used is either from nintendo or other japanese companies. The only game available on Xbox 360 or PS4 that she used for her show was Mass effect 3

And even that game she didnt show any ingame scenes that werent ripped straight from a trailer.

So... she has all this material of allegedly possible sexist games at her disposable... yet has not used a single one of them and instead uses examples from 30 years ago to make a point that games back then where more male focused then they are today...

Could it be that she simply didnt found enough examples for her theory in the current generation of games? *le gasp* Is such a thing possible? Is that why she had to fall back on games from the last 3 centuries to somehow justificate her point?

Really, your complaint is that she hasn't used enough of the games she bought, even though she's only on episode 2 of a 12 part series? Wouldn't the reasonable assumption be that she'll go on to use those games in the other 10 episodes, not that she just won't use them at all?

It goes beyond that. She portrayed herself as a gamer, a life long gamer who was criticizing gaming from the inside. But wheres her xbox live account? Steam? Should be able to point to a huge swath of achievements unlocked over many years now, you practically get an achievement for just finishing the first level of games these days, so does she even pass that bar?

The problem is that she's portrayed herself as something she's not. And the more people dig, the more people are finding she originally intended to do her feminist critique on something else, but switched to gaming because she figured she could exploit that better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2h4vITidvo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EpWezFQ3CU
He drones on a bit but he does point to the problem with her, she's probably been deceiving people all along.

Anyways demographics are a real thing. Flip past ellen sometime, any show like that, the audience they show in the studio? 99% women. Does this mean ellens sexist? Is she so sexist she doesn't know it? Should she be forced to cater to men?

The_Kodu:

God of Path:

Big_Willie_Styles:
Men are naturally stronger than women. That's just a biological fact, no matter what feminists say...

The_Kodu:

The point being the actual reasoning behind the trope.
Is it some grand plan to show Women as dis-empowered ?
Is it simply a story feature from the distant past and being used based on the past ? e.g. St George and the Dragon...

Aha! You've really gotten to the meat (and your best argument yet) here! You are exactly correct, there is no "grand plan" to show women as less equal, and I'm sure that no game developer has thought to him or herself "let's make a sexist game!" And yes, I think that this trope exists a lot in part due to our cultural heritage.

However, there is evidence that these kinds of benevolent sexism (that is, not overtly sexist, but reinforcing of gender norms and stereotypes - women being inferior than men being one of these -- so, "victimless" sexism) do have a significant impact on how people act. If you'd like I can post any of the myriad studies evidencing this, but I'm not sure how interested everyone would be in actually reading these (stodgy scholarly articles).

In summary, the damsel in distress trope exemplifies benevolent sexism, which when exposed to a population has significant deleterious effects, among which are the reinforcement of gendered norms and stereotypes, among which is the notion that women are less equal than men.

Actually I think I'd like to see these papers as I've had a small immersion in social science research methodology so I'd be curious to see how substantial the evidence backing it is.

If as you are saying this is benevolent sexism then couldn't it be claimed those who rushed to defend Anita Sarkeesian are also sexist ? Surely she should be just as capable as fighting her own battles as say Jim Sterling who regularly says he receives threats or that one Call of Duty developer who received death threats for changing a weapon's stats ?

Yep that's just a stretch for me too...

Benevolent sexism? That's a new one. I guess a parent trying to save their abducted child is reinforcing benevolent agism. A "hero" saving a village who apparently are too weak to save themselves...what "ism" would that be? Bill gates is helping poor countries with disease and poverty, so what ism is that reinforcing? Must be the norms that non western countries are poor, so best to let them fend for themselves, let the children die of malaria or whatever...

So this "exemplifies" her method where things can be twisted to condemn most anything one pleases to I guess.

Gindil:
This wasn't a claim nor a rebuttal. It was pointing out academic journal places. Not everything is somehow an attack on your character and that's an odd position to take.

You have yet to give a reason for pointing out "academic journal places," or is it common to ask tangentially related (though irrelevant) questions for no apparent reason? However, I must say I was unaware I had claimed there was any sort of attack on my character, though now that you mention it...

The great Christopher Hitches is often noted as having provided the logical razor, "what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So, for the record, let us not claim, when it is increasingly clear there is no will nor intention of ever providing evidence for said assertions, that:

Gindil:
They're one sided views on certain topics where the only ones critiquing them are those that agree with the studies.

Gindil:
...studies that don't do much to increase knowledge ... with loaded abstracts

Gindil:
Your studies rely on presuppositional arguments...

Gindil:
She promotes self censorship... Shame developers into not using [these] tropes...

Gindil:
...Anita knows nothing about Japanese culture to really comment.

Gindil:
Anita relies on the same rhetorical arguments as Jack Thompson.

Gindil:
She makes assumptions that are unfounded unless she can read minds better than Jean Grey.

You have never even quoted Anita Sarkeesian once. Show me that Ms. Sarkeesian is using Mr. Thompson's rhetoric, show me her unfounded assumptions. Unevidenced assertions aside, you claim,

Gindil:
I've heard the same thing from Fredrick Wertham and people such as Jack Thompson. So again, I do not believe you...

So it's logic time... If society has not been corrupted by the claims of Frederic Wertham who claims that a strong female character could corrupt children, why should I believe the reverse gender notion from you, that weaker women reinforce negative stereotypes?

You should, hopefully, not believe that "weaker women reinforce negative stereotypes." Primarily because it was never claimed, and is difficult to prove, as weakness is largely a subjective measure, unless, of course. you meant physically. though I do not know how physical strength would be correlated to negative stereotypes.

The largest difference between Fredrick Wertham or Jack Thompson and someone claiming that women suffer from negative stereotypes is that the latter is backed by a large body of scientific evidence. Which brings me neatly to,

Gindil:
I don't accept your claim that culture is sexist

I had never meant for those studies I linked to serve as proof that "culture is sexist." I never though that this would be questioned, but fair enough. I quoted said logical razor myself, and to not hold myself to it would be inequitable.

Let us observe the claim "our culture is sexist." (That is, out culture discriminates unfairly based upon sex.) Either this is true, or "our culture is not sexist." If our culture were not sexist, one might reasonably expect a number of things: (1)Women and men, on average, would earn the same amount of money. (2) For any given occupation which does not, by necessity, eliminate one or the other sex, both men and women are equally represented, on average. (3) Crime is roughly homogeneous, that is, both women and men are equally likely to be the victim of a given crime. If we examine these data, and they roughly reflect these rational conclusions, then the culture whose data has been examined should, logically, not be sexist. However, if the data is incongruous with these rational expectations, then the culture may be sexist. Let us then examine the United States (Anita Sarkeesian's home culture). In the United States, on average, women earn significantly less than men (ranging from 94% to 81% of a man's salary-2010), as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In the United States, it is also worth noting, there has never been a woman president or vice president, despite the fact that woman have been enfranchised since 1920 (for 23 elections). Also of note is the proportion of women representatives in the United States Congress. With 52% of the population of the United States being women, one might reasonably expect there to be roughly an equal distribution of women representatives. It is instead the case that women have never made up more than 20% of any house of Congress. Crime statistics show similar results. The CDC published findings that nearly 20% of all women have been the victim or attempted victim of a rape. This is largely disproportional to the amount of men who have been the victim or attempted victim of a rape (between 3% and 5% depending on the study). This indicates that a given woman is between four and five times more likely to have been the victim of a rape or attempted rape than a given man. All of these data indicate that women are more likely to be unfairly discriminated against than men, which is reflective of a sexist culture, at least in the United States.

Gindil:
They're both social constructs. I've already explained that if fictional games could cause one, they cause the other.

Yes, you've said that many times now. What you've not explained is why they are causal. Recreational exercise and recreational masturbation are both social constructs, too. Yet it is not claimed that porn might cause track meets.

Gindil:
There's no evidence of misogyny or violence in the 11,000 children over ten years

(Emphasis added) That's a new claim. The study I recall said nothing about misogyny. Could you point me to the right places?

wetnap:
It goes beyond that. She portrayed herself as a gamer, a life long gamer who was criticizing gaming from the inside. But wheres her xbox live account? Steam? Should be able to point to a huge swath of achievements unlocked over many years now, you practically get an achievement for just finishing the first level of games these days, so does she even pass that bar?

Interesting videos. I must ask, though, does being a "life long gamer" necessitate having an xbox live or steam account? Are those achievements really indicative of who is and is not a "gamer?"

wetnap:
Yep that's just a stretch for me too...

Benevolent sexism? That's a new one. I guess a parent trying to save their abducted child is reinforcing benevolent agism. A "hero" saving a village who apparently are too weak to save themselves...what "ism" would that be? Bill gates is helping poor countries with disease and poverty, so what ism is that reinforcing? Must be the norms that non western countries are poor, so best to let them fend for themselves, let the children die of malaria or whatever...

So this "exemplifies" her method where things can be twisted to condemn most anything one pleases to I guess.

I'm sorry but I fail to see the connection between aiding undeveloped nations with antibiotics and the negative reinforcement of gendered stereotypes, perhaps you might elaborate? So too, with how "a parent trying to save their abducted child is reinforcing benevolent agism." The idea with the damsel in distress trope is not that "anyone who is rescued is unempowered." Instead, it is a trope because of its seeming ubiquity. It may also be said that there is no overabundance of the examples you gave, precisely the attribute that makes a trope.

Perhaps one might seek to understand a novel phenomenon before lambasting it.

God of Path:

Gindil:
This wasn't a claim nor a rebuttal. It was pointing out academic journal places. Not everything is somehow an attack on your character and that's an odd position to take.

You have yet to give a reason for pointing out "academic journal places," or is it common to ask tangentially related (though irrelevant) questions for no apparent reason? However, I must say I was unaware I had claimed there was any sort of attack on my character, though now that you mention it...

What are you talking about? Studying children for 10 years and finding that games did not change their behavior is relevant to this topic.

So, for the record, let us not claim, when it is increasingly clear there is no will nor intention of ever providing evidence for said assertions, that:

You have never even quoted Anita Sarkeesian once. Show me that Ms. Sarkeesian is using Mr. Thompson's rhetoric, show me her unfounded assumptions. Unevidenced assertions aside, you claim,

Gindil:
I've heard the same thing from Fredrick Wertham and people such as Jack Thompson. So again, I do not believe you...

You mean her presuppositional arguments?

I don't have to prove her assertions wrong. That's not how academic criteria work. She has to prove that games cause sexist behavior. That standard is not met.

And I showed Fredrick Wertham's issue to which you've decided to plead ignorance now.

So it's logic time... If society has not been corrupted by the claims of Frederic Wertham who claims that a strong female character could corrupt children, why should I believe the reverse gender notion from you, that weaker women reinforce negative stereotypes?

You should, hopefully, not believe that "weaker women reinforce negative stereotypes." Primarily because it was never claimed, and is difficult to prove, as weakness is largely a subjective measure, unless, of course. you meant physically. though I do not know how physical strength would be correlated to negative stereotypes.[/quote]

Case in point. And it's not just about physical strength but you're free to think that if you want, it wasn't the only issue from that article.

The largest difference between Fredrick Wertham or Jack Thompson and someone claiming that women suffer from negative stereotypes is that the latter is backed by a large body of scientific evidence. Which brings me neatly to,

Gindil:
I don't accept your claim that culture is sexist

I had never meant for those studies I linked to serve as proof that "culture is sexist." I never though that this would be questioned, but fair enough. I quoted said logical razor myself, and to not hold myself to it would be inequitable.

Let us observe the claim "our culture is sexist." (That is, out culture discriminates unfairly based upon sex.) Either this is true, or "our culture is not sexist." If our culture were not sexist, one might reasonably expect a number of things: (1)Women and men, on average, would earn the same amount of money.

False. Do men and women go for the same jobs? Are there other social constructs to consider before such a claim can be made? I doubt highly you've done research into this besides things that can't be proven.

(2) For any given occupation which does not, by necessity, eliminate one or the other sex, both men and women are equally represented, on average.

Why are we getting into an argument about jobs? And what does this have to do with video games?

(3) Crime is roughly homogeneous, that is, both women and men are equally likely to be the victim of a given crime. If we examine these data, and they roughly reflect these rational conclusions, then the culture whose data has been examined should, logically, not be sexist.

... Really? The 2.3 million people in prison which is disproportionately men thanks to our drug war to foster a prison industrial complex isn't a clue that maybe there are other issues to consider?

However, if the data is incongruous with these rational expectations, then the culture may be sexist.

Please don't cherry pick the data to support your beliefs...

Let us then examine the United States (Anita Sarkeesian's home culture). In the United States, on average, women earn significantly less than men (ranging from 94% to 81% of a man's salary-2010), as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And it begins... Instead of looking at other social constructs and analyzing things, we are to instead conflate all men and women together as if there aren't any variances on the people in the US... That's not good for your argument, and does nothing to show how or why there are differences in pay, particularly when CEO pay is 380x to 420x that of the average worker thanks to capitalism destroying the working class and moving jobs to other countries with low wages since the 70s.

In the United States, it is also worth noting, there has never been a woman president or vice president, despite the fact that woman have been enfranchised since 1920 (for 23 elections).

And? This has nothing to do with people supposedly having a hatred towards women. And last I checked, Hillary DID run and almost win in 2008 while in the next election, there's a possibility that people would vouch for Elizabeth Warren. Also, you may want to look at Jill Stein in the Green Party. The problem is not that people won't vote for a woman. It's an electoral system that allows plutocracy in democracy.

Also of note is the proportion of women representatives in the United States Congress. With 52% of the population of the United States being women, one might reasonably expect there to be roughly an equal distribution of women representatives. It is instead the case that women have never made up more than 20% of any house of Congress. Crime statistics show similar results.

What in hell are you talking about? What does a woman's choice to run for political office have to do with succeeding or failing in gerrymandered districts pulling to the right while also having no Instant Runoff Voting which allows more diverse candidates?!

The CDC published findings that nearly 20% of all women have been the victim or attempted victim of a rape.

And the DoJ has other statistics (pdf)

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997) stated that 91% of United States people whose rape accusations resulted in convictions against the accused were female and 9% were male. It also stated that 99% of the people convicted of and imprisoned in response to rape accusations were male, with only 1% of those convicted being female

And I'd be careful because what most feminists seem to advocate is more accusations while not solving the problem of rape.

Even then, there's the issue of prison rape going ignored.

All of these data indicate that women are more likely to be unfairly discriminated against than men, which is reflective of a sexist culture, at least in the United States.

Well, when you can cherry pick the data and ignore other issues, it sure seems that way...

Gindil:
They're both social constructs. I've already explained that if fictional games could cause one, they cause the other.

Yes, you've said that many times now. What you've not explained is why they are causal. Recreational exercise and recreational masturbation are both social constructs, too. Yet it is not claimed that porn might cause track meets.

Gindil:
There's no evidence of misogyny or violence in the 11,000 children over ten years

(Emphasis added) That's a new claim. The study I recall said nothing about misogyny. Could you point me to the right places?

[/quote]

I've told you multiple times about behavior which has been observed. The study didn't see an increase in violence or misogyny since I'm sure that over a ten year span, the researchers would have seen either one.

If you can't see that Anita's claims do not meet academic scrutiny, that's on you. She hasn't shown how games are sexist no matter how many examples she pulls out of context, nor has she shown that this affects the real world. Can you prove that games are sexist or not?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here