Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women in Video Games

[Jimmy Higgins]

So she's a woman? What does that have to do with anything? Should she be expected to be treated any less harshly simply because of her sex?

No, but she in reality gets treated *more* harshly because of her sex - thus the litany of rape threads against her, and many other women online, by the 4chaners.

Guess who doesn't get routine rape threats? Hint: Any man who also gets mobbed by those sociopaths. Again, it's an issue because said people openly make it one.

Now, that's two down. Try not to make such plainly ridiculous arguments in the future.

So are you saying that men who engage in controversial causes don't get threats of ass-rape?

Video gaming isn't a 'controversial cause'.

They don't get threats of murder? Beatings or other violence? Or do those type of threats not count compared to rape? Are you sure you're applying the rules evenly, and not having different standards based on biological sex? Threats are the price of trying to stick your nose into what other people enjoy in the privacy of their own homes. It is what it is. It's funny how she complains about damsels in distress being a trope, then whines about how threatened she feels.

There would appear to be some irony there. BUT, and this is such a big BUT it could deserve an extra T, the complaints about her would seem a bit less outrageously sexist based, if actors like those starring in Star Wars weren't be eviscerated online. This is something we see over a larger spectrum than merely gaming. Women, whenever they intercede in an area they hadn't before, have been met with a great deal of resistance. This is hardly a new phenomenon, but in the social media age, the harassment is unending and passes through even the walls of peoples homes.

So when I see the vitrolic and primal distaste for Anita, a person I am extremely unfamiliar with, it feels like it has less to do with her position and more to do with who she is as a female and her daring to question the status quo. I mean, otherwise, if she were so wrong and clueless, why even care? There are plenty of clueless people out there on YouTube that no one takes notice of.

 

[Arctish]

I interested in exploring the question of why she's a controversial figure. I want to start by looking at what she has actually said and done. The points she raises don't look all that controversial to me. Tropes aren't a new and threatening concept. They're pretty well established in popular culture, and their function in storytelling is widely understood. But Sarkeesian's series on tropes in video games struck a nerve and I think that's worth discussing.



You keep alleging she wants to censor video games. If she calls for that anywhere in her series, we'll get to it.

What's the purpose of said critique? What's the end goal? Why shouldn't I believe that her, and her supporters' end goal is the removal of content they find objectionable? If she doesn't think content needs to be changed, why have the series in the first place?

That's like asking why people review books, why food critics write articles about the meals they've eaten, or why Margaret Mead wrote Coming of Age in Samoa. People are interested in those topics. People write and give lectures about them. Other people enjoy reading or listening to critiques and commentaries about them.

If you want to understand Sarkeesian's purpose in making this series then IMO the best place to start is by watching it. It's worth a try, anyway.

People who aren't interested in violent games, or games with scantily clad sexy women, can choose to play games that don't have those things, or even to not play at all. Those aren't the only type of games available to those who want to play games.

I doubt her supporters can actually defend her content against her critics, or they're going to a threat narrative because it's easier. (Instead of addressing her critics points; they point to threats she's received, as if she doesn't have critics that don't threaten her) IMO it's no different than saying an adult should be prohibited from an activity "for the children" when said adult's engaging in said activity isn't involving a child.

Well, let's examine the content and see if it needs defending by anyone.

It's been mentioned upthread about why she's a controversial figure. It's even been discussed here in other threads.

Examples include things like her review of hitman absolution where she claims that it's encouraged to kill the women in the game, when they're not the target. You're supposed to sneak by them, the objective is to take out your target without being caught. Unlike she claims they're not background decoration, they're people who can notice you. (you don't want to attract attention)

Show

Criticism of her about hitman absolution starts at about 2:34 into the video. It shows her footage, followed by why she's wrong. If you look at the top left you can see the point deduction for killing the strippers.

An example from an earlier thread was her calling Dixie Kong an example of the Ms. Male trope. I pointed out why she was wrong about that. here. In DKC Dixie's superior jumping & control of falls matters.

Her tweets about Doom & Fallout 4 at E3 2015 would be another thing. Also her complaints about pregnant women in Fallout Shelter.

Doom without violence, seriously? This is one of the first 1st person shooter games that popularized the genre. Why should the game remove the core element of what makes it Doom? Her complaints about killing things in a post apocalyptic wasteland (Fallout 4). Her complaints about pregnant women in Fallout Shelter running away from combat. If you're trying to repopulate a wasteland after nuclear war, do you really want pregnant women rushing into combat?

Copies of the actual tweets can be seen at the links immediately below w/r/t Doom
http://www.reaxxion.com/9993/anita-...hypocrisy-by-complaining-about-dooms-violence

Show

View attachment 16359

You want to try and reason with Raiders? Super Mutants? Feral Ghouls? Radscorpions? Hostile mutated animals? Good luck with that.

Show

View attachment 16358

Tell me again how you're supposed to repopulate without pregnant women following a nuclear holocaust? So there's some cheesy humor, while they run away, but getting them hurt or killed is inimical to repopulation.

Lying about the 2015 E3 badges doesn't help either

Show

View attachment 16360

Her complaints about sexy/revealing armor that we discussed in the Lingerie != Armor thread. We're not the only ones to have this discussion. Here's a link to the discussion we had here on this topic.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?8494-Anita-Sarkeesian-Lingerie-!-Armor


If it's to be compared to food critics why is the channel called "Feminist Frequency"? Do food critics with non-political shows name said shows after political movements? One doesn't have to say "Censor this" for it to be a call for censorship; there are more subtle ways to do the same thing. Why should I see this as anything else, since she did name her channel after a political movement?

Why would I defend any of her footage? I'm opposed to her.

You are criticizing parts of the series in a very scattershot manner, out of sequence and without regard for the various tropes she was highlighting in each installment. It's confusing, and it makes her work look confused. That's why I don't want to jump ahead in the series. Right now we're on Damsels in Distress. Do you have any particular criticisms to level at her opening installment? It's been suggested she doesn't distinguish between hapless damsels and kick-ass female characters. Do you agree with that assessment?

I'm not asking you to defend her. I'm not even asking you to watch her videos. But if you don't watch them you have little of value to add to the discussion until we move on to discussing the Gamergate dogma regarding her work. Watching all of the installments in her series has to come first, otherwise we won't be able to tell the difference between a legitimate critique and a bullshit complaint. But don't worry, we'll get to all of the issues you raised in turn if people are willing to keep moving forward in the discussion.

Here's what I think is a good critique of Damsels in Distress Part 1. The author stays focused on Sarkeesian's actual work and criticizes certain aspects in a thoughtful, well argued manner. I agree with him in some places (the conclusion of the installment is a non-sequitur) but disagree with him in others (the overall lack of plot in a Mario or Zelda game doesn't render the trope any less of a reinforcement of gender stereotypes). There is a point he raises that I'll have to look into myself that has to do with game developer Miyamoto saying he thought Dinosaur Planet should be the third installment in his Star Fox franchise. The author says Sarkeesian was not accurately reporting what Miyamoto meant. That would be akin to what started this thread: a mined quote being used deceptively. I'll try to track it down.

Meanwhile, if y'all have watched the first installment let's move on to Damsels in Distress Part 2.

 

[Arctish]

I haven't found the Miyamoto interview, but I have found a couple of sources that talk about the change from Dinosaur Planet to Star Fox Adventures.

Around the time of E3 2000, as Shigeru Miyamoto stated in an interview, he was reviewing progress on Dinosaur Planet when he noticed striking similarities between Sabre and his own Star Fox protagonist, Fox McCloud.

He encouraged Rare to rebrand the game as a Star Fox release. The development team rewrote the universe and story to incorporate Star Fox canon and characters, the game was shifted to the Nintendo Gamecube, and the game was renamed Star Fox Adventures.

https://nerdrevolt.net/2018/04/27/rare-dinosaur-planet/

The second source, Nintendo Everything has former Rare game designer Phil Tossell confirming what Sarkeesian said about the change. He says Miyamoto felt the characters were similar to his Star Fox games and offered Rare the opportunity to produce something for an established, popular franchise.

Without seeing the actual interview it's impossible to say if Sarkeesian misrepresented Miyamoto's statement but so far the evidence indicates her brief recap of the story is accurate. Destiny might be right about the decision being driven by business concerns, but that's beside the point since Sarkeesian wasn't talking about that.

*The Nerd Revolt article is really interesting, if you're into game history.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It appears you haven't watched all of the first installment. You missed the picture of her playing the game she's focused on throughout most of it. Also, can you point to specific parts of her commentary that strike you as problematic?

Pictures of her playing them don't prove she actually played them. They easily could be staged.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You are criticizing parts of the series in a very scattershot manner, out of sequence and without regard for the various tropes she was highlighting in each installment. It's confusing, and it makes her work look confused. That's why I don't want to jump ahead in the series. Right now we're on Damsels in Distress. Do you have any particular criticisms to level at her opening installment? It's been suggested she doesn't distinguish between hapless damsels and kick-ass female characters. Do you agree with that assessment?

The things being brought up show that she doesn't understand what she's talking about. Of course it's scattershot, people focus on the biggest errors. In the real world the presence of multiple big errors almost inevitably means there's a lot more smaller errors that aren't so easy to spot or prove.

 

[Arctish]

It appears you haven't watched all of the first installment. You missed the picture of her playing the game she's focused on throughout most of it. Also, can you point to specific parts of her commentary that strike you as problematic?

Pictures of her playing them don't prove she actually played them. They easily could be staged.

Nothing over the internet proves the people who claim to be gamers really are gamers. They easily could be lying. But in the absence of evidence I'm dealing with liars, I'll proceed on the presumption they are telling the truth. Same with Sarkeesian and that picture of her as a kid.

Did you watch the video?

 

[Arctish]

You are criticizing parts of the series in a very scattershot manner, out of sequence and without regard for the various tropes she was highlighting in each installment. It's confusing, and it makes her work look confused. That's why I don't want to jump ahead in the series. Right now we're on Damsels in Distress. Do you have any particular criticisms to level at her opening installment? It's been suggested she doesn't distinguish between hapless damsels and kick-ass female characters. Do you agree with that assessment?

The things being brought up show that she doesn't understand what she's talking about. Of course it's scattershot, people focus on the biggest errors. In the real world the presence of multiple big errors almost inevitably means there's a lot more smaller errors that aren't so easy to spot or prove.

No, they don't.

That's what I'm getting at here.

The only thing that will show she doesn't understand what she's talking about is watching her videos, investigating her claims, and critiquing her actual points, not the scattershot, cherry-picked lists that people find somewhere on the internet and post here in lieu of presenting an actual argument.

If she doesn't know what she's talking about, show us where she's mistaken or ill-informed. Start with Damsels in Distress Part 1. What part of her video reveals a lack of knowledge of the subject matter? What part of her argument do you think is fallacious? Is she mistaken about the things she cites being tropes? Does she misunderstand the meaning and use of the tropes she identifies? It's been suggested she doesn't distinguish between hapless damsels and kick-ass female characters. Do you agree with that assessment? If so, why?


Don't just make vague, unsubstantiated claims. Show your work.

 

[Terrell]

Looks like someone wants to define proof in such a way that no amount of evidence can prove it. Either what she said was right or wrong, things I've posted are examples where she's demonstrably wrong, that doesn't change on the basis of how it's shown.

@Jimmy
Censorship is a controversial issue. No her being a female isn't the problem, what she's doing, or trying to do is the problem. We don't want content she doesn't like barred whether by law, or pressure from political groups.

 

[Arctish]

Looks like someone wants to define proof in such a way that no amount of evidence can prove it. Either what she said was right or wrong, things I've posted are examples where she's demonstrably wrong, that doesn't change on the basis of how it's shown.

@Jimmy
Censorship is a controversial issue. No her being a female isn't the problem, what she's doing, or trying to do is the problem. We don't want content she doesn't like barred whether by law, or pressure from political groups.

The problem with what you posted isn't that it's not proof of her being wrong.

The problem is that we haven't gotten to that part of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. We haven't seen those installments yet. We have no way of judging for ourselves if they're accurate, distorted, bullshit, or brilliant critiques of Sarkeesian's work.

This thread is a place to review Sarkeesians actual work and form our own opinions about it, but some folks here don't appear to have any interest in watching the series or judging her work themselves. So far there's been precious little indication anyone but me has watched the first installment. I'm going to move forward anyway. Eventually I will get to the installments discussed in the links you provided, and then we'll see if they have merit.

Y'all can watch the videos or not, it's your choice. But don't expect ignorance won't be noticed, or that you can pass off someone else's work as your own.

What did you think of Damsels in Distress Part 1, Terrell? What did you think of Destiny's assessment? Was there any part of either one that struck you as problematic?

 

[Mumbles]

You are criticizing parts of the series in a very scattershot manner, out of sequence and without regard for the various tropes she was highlighting in each installment. It's confusing, and it makes her work look confused. That's why I don't want to jump ahead in the series. Right now we're on Damsels in Distress. Do you have any particular criticisms to level at her opening installment? It's been suggested she doesn't distinguish between hapless damsels and kick-ass female characters. Do you agree with that assessment?

She outright names several such women later in the series (in fact, in parts 2 and 3 of the same trope, as well as later on),

Here's what I think is a good critique of Damsels in Distress Part 1. The author stays focused on Sarkeesian's actual work and criticizes certain aspects in a thoughtful, well argued manner. I agree with him in some places (the conclusion of the installment is a non-sequitur) but disagree with him in others (the overall lack of plot in a Mario or Zelda game doesn't render the trope any less of a reinforcement of gender stereotypes). There is a point he raises that I'll have to look into myself that has to do with game developer Miyamoto saying he thought Dinosaur Planet should be the third installment in his Star Fox franchise. The author says Sarkeesian was not accurately reporting what Miyamoto meant. That would be akin to what started this thread: a mined quote being used deceptively. I'll try to track it down.

Her "How does this effect society" conclusions are generally iffy and unsourced, when she does them. She may have intended supplemental materials to cover this, but I never really looked into those. And yeah, the thin (though not absent) plot doesn't really mean that the trope isn't used - if anything, it's what forced developers to use tropes in place of any story.Consider this- there's little to no plot anywhere in SMB itself, just either some mushroom guy to tell you "She's not here", or eventually the Princess to say "End of run!" at World 8-4. It's easy enough to recognize that you know it on sight. Zelda has a bit more room and an instruction manual to explain that, before you start, the Princess breaks up the Magic Thing, hides them, and puts monsters in place to guard each piece that you now have to kill. But in-game, she just waits a the end for you to show up. And a lot of other games use this same trope "that monster/person kidnapped that girl, go get her!"because you just need a "girl" character to get pull offscreen or something by a "bad guy". Everyone knows what's going on, immediately.

On Starfox Adventures - I specifically did not buy the game because of the switch to Fox McCloud as the main character, since he clearly just doesn't fit in - the guy's a fighter pilot, why is he suddenly doing planetary exploration with no modern weapon for emergencies? It was a break in logic, but not to the point of Mario Kart where they're clearly saying "This is entirely aside from the platformer series, and we're not even going to try to explain this, it's absurd anyway even in-universe". And I distinctly remember things going roughly the way Sarkeesian said they did, even at the time.

 

[Mumbles]

@Jimmy
Censorship is a controversial issue. No her being a female isn't the problem, what she's doing, or trying to do is the problem. We don't want content she doesn't like barred whether by law, or pressure from political groups.

Then I'd suggest actually waiting for any such pressure and then responding appropriately if and when it does, rather than just screaming "BICH WE'LL KILL YOUR FAMILY AND RAPE YOU!!!" before anyone even suggests any such thing - it makes your side look profoundly unsympathetic and unhinged.

(and yes, the misspelling was intentional.)

Yes, there were absurd hearings on trying to ban "violent" games in the 90s - and the ESRB was set up to get congress to stop annoying the industry via voluntary ratings, while actual censorship legislation got knocked down in the courts, every time, in the US. I remember music going through the exact same thing shortly beforehand, particularly with whatever congresspeople thought was "gangsta rap" - which oddly included death metal songs like "Cop Killer". Censorship was simply not being suggested here - and at this point industries are pretty much mocking this same crowd openly as the try to push into other form of entertainment.

 

[Arctish]

I've just watched Damsel in Distress Part 2.

In this installment, Sarkeesian interjected more of her opinions into the main body of her presentation. There are several places where she is clearly offering a personal opinion rather than a dispassionate commentary. But I didn't find anything all that controversial, and I think she's done a better job of supporting her argument than in the first installment.

I think that once again, Sarkeesian has correctly identified the tropes being employed and why they're problematic. I think her critique of the Damsel in the Refrigerator hybrid is spot-on. I admit, fully and freely, that I haven't played any of the games she mentions in this installment. My husband has played some of them and I saw and heard enough to have a general idea of what goes on in them, but I'm not claiming to have any particular insight here. My only means of checking what Sarkeesian says about those games is by finding reviews at sites like Kotaku.

Perhaps folks who have played those games would like to share their impressions.

 

[thebeave]

I've always been a bit bemused by the "Damsel in Distress" (DiD) scenario in video games versus "real life". From Anita's point of view, the DiD trope is considered problematic and sexist, at least in the world of make-believe. But how does this translate into real world situations? Take for example this real world event in the UK from earlier this month:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6465766/female-boss-slams-white-middle-class-men-who-fled-as-6ft-attacker-kicked-and-threatened-her-on-tube-in-london/

A FASHION CEO who was kicked and threatened by a 6ft man on the Tube has slammed the "white middle class men" who did nothing to help - instead simply shifting seats.

Tamara Cincik while she didn't blame the man involved, saying he was clearly unwell, but she was left unimpressed by the "cowards" who did nothing.

Should those white men have come to the aid of the damsel-in-distress, or did they do the right thing by staying away so as to be "not sexist"? What makes this even more convoluted is the woman appears to be a feminist (look up her social media profile), yet she takes the exact opposite view of Anita who is also a feminist. So we have opposing views within the feminist community regarding the scenario of men rescuing damsels. It seems men are faced with a Kobayashi Maru test. It's a no-win scenario.

Can you clarify the perception between DiD in games versus DiD in real life? Should they be seen differently, and if so, why?

 

[Juma]

I've always been a bit bemused by the "Damsel in Distress" (DiD) scenario in video games versus "real life". From Anita's point of view, the DiD trope is considered problematic and sexist, at least in the world of make-believe. But how does this translate into real world situations? Take for example this real world event in the UK from earlier this month:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6465766/female-boss-slams-white-middle-class-men-who-fled-as-6ft-attacker-kicked-and-threatened-her-on-tube-in-london/

A FASHION CEO who was kicked and threatened by a 6ft man on the Tube has slammed the "white middle class men" who did nothing to help - instead simply shifting seats.

Tamara Cincik while she didn't blame the man involved, saying he was clearly unwell, but she was left unimpressed by the "cowards" who did nothing.

Should those white men have come to the aid of the damsel-in-distress, or did they do the right thing by staying away so as to be "not sexist"? What makes this even more convoluted is the woman appears to be a feminist (look up her social media profile), yet she takes the exact opposite view of Anita who is also a feminist. So we have opposing views within the feminist community regarding the scenario of men rescuing damsels. It seems men are faced with a Kobayashi Maru test. It's a no-win scenario.

Can you clarify the perception between DiD in games versus DiD in real life? Should they be seen differently, and if so, why?

The Tamara incident shouldnt be about her being female, its about noone helping. Wether the victim is male or female doesnt matter.

 

[Terrell]

Looks like someone wants to define proof in such a way that no amount of evidence can prove it. Either what she said was right or wrong, things I've posted are examples where she's demonstrably wrong, that doesn't change on the basis of how it's shown.

@Jimmy
Censorship is a controversial issue. No her being a female isn't the problem, what she's doing, or trying to do is the problem. We don't want content she doesn't like barred whether by law, or pressure from political groups.

The problem with what you posted isn't that it's not proof of her being wrong.

The problem is that we haven't gotten to that part of Tropes vs. Women in Video Games. We haven't seen those installments yet. We have no way of judging for ourselves if they're accurate, distorted, bullshit, or brilliant critiques of Sarkeesian's work.

This thread is a place to review Sarkeesians actual work and form our own opinions about it, but some folks here don't appear to have any interest in watching the series or judging her work themselves. So far there's been precious little indication anyone but me has watched the first installment. I'm going to move forward anyway. Eventually I will get to the installments discussed in the links you provided, and then we'll see if they have merit.

Y'all can watch the videos or not, it's your choice. But don't expect ignorance won't be noticed, or that you can pass off someone else's work as your own.

What did you think of Damsels in Distress Part 1, Terrell? What did you think of Destiny's assessment? Was there any part of either one that struck you as problematic?

How is the video footage of where she says one thing about hitman absolution and other people show both that she's wrong. The strippers aren't there to be violated & posed by the player as indicated by the score penalties for doing so. It also shows the correct ways to get by the strippers. One being sneaking by them closely, the other an alternative route that prevents them from seeing you. You can deny that all you want, but you're still wrong about this.


Applying pressure, political or social to manufacturers of video games that have content you don't like removed is an attempt at censorship. Those of us who enjoy games don't want her to succeed.

So some people threaten her; that comes with the territory of engaging in activism. That says nothing about those critics who don't threaten her. Her whining about it amounts to her playing the damsel in distress that she's so critical of in games. Your side can't address the actual criticism of her for where she's wrong, so you try and say what we're allowed to attack, or you hide behind the threat narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

I've always been a bit bemused by the "Damsel in Distress" (DiD) scenario in video games versus "real life". From Anita's point of view, the DiD trope is considered problematic and sexist, at least in the world of make-believe. But how does this translate into real world situations? Take for example this real world event in the UK from earlier this month:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6465766/female-boss-slams-white-middle-class-men-who-fled-as-6ft-attacker-kicked-and-threatened-her-on-tube-in-london/

A FASHION CEO who was kicked and threatened by a 6ft man on the Tube has slammed the "white middle class men" who did nothing to help - instead simply shifting seats.

Tamara Cincik while she didn't blame the man involved, saying he was clearly unwell, but she was left unimpressed by the "cowards" who did nothing.

Should those white men have come to the aid of the damsel-in-distress, or did they do the right thing by staying away so as to be "not sexist"? What makes this even more convoluted is the woman appears to be a feminist (look up her social media profile), yet she takes the exact opposite view of Anita who is also a feminist. So we have opposing views within the feminist community regarding the scenario of men rescuing damsels. It seems men are faced with a Kobayashi Maru test. It's a no-win scenario.

Can you clarify the perception between DiD in games versus DiD in real life? Should they be seen differently, and if so, why?

The Tamara incident shouldnt be about her being female, its about noone helping. Wether the victim is male or female doesnt matter.

Why direct the outrage at people who didn't want to risk getting hurt or killed, rather than the actual criminal? (that should probably be a thread of it's own)

 

[thebeave]

I've always been a bit bemused by the "Damsel in Distress" (DiD) scenario in video games versus "real life". From Anita's point of view, the DiD trope is considered problematic and sexist, at least in the world of make-believe. But how does this translate into real world situations? Take for example this real world event in the UK from earlier this month:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6465766/female-boss-slams-white-middle-class-men-who-fled-as-6ft-attacker-kicked-and-threatened-her-on-tube-in-london/

A FASHION CEO who was kicked and threatened by a 6ft man on the Tube has slammed the "white middle class men" who did nothing to help - instead simply shifting seats.

Tamara Cincik while she didn't blame the man involved, saying he was clearly unwell, but she was left unimpressed by the "cowards" who did nothing.

Should those white men have come to the aid of the damsel-in-distress, or did they do the right thing by staying away so as to be "not sexist"? What makes this even more convoluted is the woman appears to be a feminist (look up her social media profile), yet she takes the exact opposite view of Anita who is also a feminist. So we have opposing views within the feminist community regarding the scenario of men rescuing damsels. It seems men are faced with a Kobayashi Maru test. It's a no-win scenario.

Can you clarify the perception between DiD in games versus DiD in real life? Should they be seen differently, and if so, why?

The Tamara incident shouldnt be about her being female, its about noone helping. Wether the victim is male or female doesnt matter.

So, why in video games is gender an issue? Why can't we see Princess Peach as a person needing help, rather than a female needing help? There are a number of video games where its a man that needs rescuing and its not a gender thing. And look at Matt Damon. He has made a career out of being a man in need of a rescue!

 

[thebeave]

How is the video footage of where she says one thing about hitman absolution and other people show both that she's wrong. The strippers aren't there to be violated & posed by the player as indicated by the score penalties for doing so. It also shows the correct ways to get by the strippers. One being sneaking by them closely, the other an alternative route that prevents them from seeing you. You can deny that all you want, but you're still wrong about this.


Applying pressure, political or social to manufacturers of video games that have content you don't like removed is an attempt at censorship. Those of us who enjoy games don't want her to succeed.

So some people threaten her; that comes with the territory of engaging in activism. That says nothing about those critics who don't threaten her. Her whining about it amounts to her playing the damsel in distress that she's so critical of in games. Your side can't address the actual criticism of her for where she's wrong, so you try and say what we're allowed to attack, or you hide behind the threat narrative.

- - - Updated - - -

I've always been a bit bemused by the "Damsel in Distress" (DiD) scenario in video games versus "real life". From Anita's point of view, the DiD trope is considered problematic and sexist, at least in the world of make-believe. But how does this translate into real world situations? Take for example this real world event in the UK from earlier this month:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6465766/female-boss-slams-white-middle-class-men-who-fled-as-6ft-attacker-kicked-and-threatened-her-on-tube-in-london/

A FASHION CEO who was kicked and threatened by a 6ft man on the Tube has slammed the "white middle class men" who did nothing to help - instead simply shifting seats.

Tamara Cincik while she didn't blame the man involved, saying he was clearly unwell, but she was left unimpressed by the "cowards" who did nothing.

Should those white men have come to the aid of the damsel-in-distress, or did they do the right thing by staying away so as to be "not sexist"? What makes this even more convoluted is the woman appears to be a feminist (look up her social media profile), yet she takes the exact opposite view of Anita who is also a feminist. So we have opposing views within the feminist community regarding the scenario of men rescuing damsels. It seems men are faced with a Kobayashi Maru test. It's a no-win scenario.

Can you clarify the perception between DiD in games versus DiD in real life? Should they be seen differently, and if so, why?

The Tamara incident shouldnt be about her being female, its about noone helping. Wether the victim is male or female doesnt matter.

Why direct the outrage at people who didn't want to risk getting hurt or killed, rather than the actual criminal? (that should probably be a thread of it's own)

Heh. I thought of that too. The man who attacked her was non-white (noticed how he's described as 6', but the do-nothing men are described as white). If the attacker was white, I think it would be made quite clear, and all three would be blamed for her predicament. Look at her Twitter account and you'll see her life is built around identity politics.

What's amusing is that the whole thing ended up exactly how Anita Sarkeesian would like. Ultimately, Tamara dealt with the evildoer on her own initially, and was aided later by two women. How can it get any better than that?

 

[Mumbles]

I've always been a bit bemused by the "Damsel in Distress" (DiD) scenario in video games versus "real life". From Anita's point of view, the DiD trope is considered problematic and sexist, at least in the world of make-believe. But how does this translate into real world situations? Take for example this real world event in the UK from earlier this month:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6465766/female-boss-slams-white-middle-class-men-who-fled-as-6ft-attacker-kicked-and-threatened-her-on-tube-in-london/

A FASHION CEO who was kicked and threatened by a 6ft man on the Tube has slammed the "white middle class men" who did nothing to help - instead simply shifting seats.

Tamara Cincik while she didn't blame the man involved, saying he was clearly unwell, but she was left unimpressed by the "cowards" who did nothing.

Should those white men have come to the aid of the damsel-in-distress, or did they do the right thing by staying away so as to be "not sexist"? What makes this even more convoluted is the woman appears to be a feminist (look up her social media profile), yet she takes the exact opposite view of Anita who is also a feminist. So we have opposing views within the feminist community regarding the scenario of men rescuing damsels. It seems men are faced with a Kobayashi Maru test. It's a no-win scenario.

Can you clarify the perception between DiD in games versus DiD in real life? Should they be seen differently, and if so, why?

The Tamara incident shouldnt be about her being female, its about noone helping. Wether the victim is male or female doesnt matter.

Well, astute observers will also note the difference between an actual person being attacked, and a story device. You can swap Princess Toadstool with a diamond, a Triforce, or a device simply called "the McGuffin", and the entire thing is unchanged. a person kicking and yelling at a dog is simply an animal abuser, and a person yelling at a diamond is...just weird.

There's the difference, right there.

Heh. I thought of that too. The man who attacked her was non-white (noticed how he's described as 6', but the do-nothing men are described as white). If the attacker was white, I think it would be made quite clear, and all three would be blamed for her predicament. Look at her Twitter account and you'll see her life is built around identity politics.

What's amusing is that the whole thing ended up exactly how Anita Sarkeesian would like. Ultimately, Tamara dealt with the evildoer on her own initially, and was aided later by two women. How can it get any better than that?

As far as the US goes, race only comes into play when there's a noticeable pattern of mistreatment and violence - similar to how many have noticed that mass shooters tend to be men with a history of stalking/threatening/beating women. There's also a easily noticeable pattern of victim-blaming for victims who are not white men, however - see the litany of contradictory excuses for police brutality against black people, as one example. I don't know if this is the same in the UK, of course.

 

[Mumbles]

Applying pressure, political or social to manufacturers of video games that have content you don't like removed is an attempt at censorship. Those of us who enjoy games don't want her to succeed.

So some people threaten her; that comes with the territory of engaging in activism. That says nothing about those critics who don't threaten her. Her whining about it amounts to her playing the damsel in distress that she's so critical of in games. Your side can't address the actual criticism of her for where she's wrong, so you try and say what we're allowed to attack, or you hide behind the threat narrative.

Note the hypocrisy here - Anita is a horrible censor for criticizing video game stories, as is anyone who says "Yeah, that's true, I'm not buying games with hack writing like that", and "those of us who enjoy games"* object to this. But threats of rape and violence against her "come with the territory" and can be ignored, despite the obvious threats carried by...well, threats.

And again, real life and fiction are obviously different, so the claim that she's making herself into some "Damsel" is just idiotic. This moved well beyond "video game tropes" and into "a discussion of how people online intimidate people by floods of threats, slurs, and other forms of hatred and hostility." But since this discussion is on Anita's analysis alone, it's also somewhat beyond the scope of this thread.

*: What do you mean "us" here? As a long-time gamer, I have no issue with what she does at all.

 

[ruby sparks]

I've always been a bit bemused by the "Damsel in Distress" (DiD) scenario in video games versus "real life". From Anita's point of view, the DiD trope is considered problematic and sexist, at least in the world of make-believe. But how does this translate into real world situations? Take for example this real world event in the UK from earlier this month:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6465766/female-boss-slams-white-middle-class-men-who-fled-as-6ft-attacker-kicked-and-threatened-her-on-tube-in-london/

A FASHION CEO who was kicked and threatened by a 6ft man on the Tube has slammed the "white middle class men" who did nothing to help - instead simply shifting seats.

Tamara Cincik while she didn't blame the man involved, saying he was clearly unwell, but she was left unimpressed by the "cowards" who did nothing.

Should those white men have come to the aid of the damsel-in-distress, or did they do the right thing by staying away so as to be "not sexist"? What makes this even more convoluted is the woman appears to be a feminist (look up her social media profile), yet she takes the exact opposite view of Anita who is also a feminist. So we have opposing views within the feminist community regarding the scenario of men rescuing damsels. It seems men are faced with a Kobayashi Maru test. It's a no-win scenario.

Can you clarify the perception between DiD in games versus DiD in real life? Should they be seen differently, and if so, why?

The Tamara incident shouldnt be about her being female, its about noone helping. Wether the victim is male or female doesnt matter.

Ok but it seems she expected the men to rescue her. I think she called them disgusting cowards for not doing so. I think she specifically said they were white, middle-class, were married and had children, according to reports of what she said.