Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs Women in Video Games

[Arctish]

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.

We talked about the strippers in Hitman Absolution in the last thread. We will talk about it again in this one, when we get to that installment.

Have you watched the first and second installments? If you have no particular problems with Sarkeesian's point of view regarding the Damsel in Distress trope and really only object to her comments on that one game, fine. Let's move on.

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.

Death threats, rape threats, harassment, stalking, doxing, etc. comes with the territory of having an opinion so not-extreme that we're two episodes into her video series and no one has found anything worthy of criticizing besides her concluding remarks in the first video being a non sequitur?

Sarkeesian hit a nerve with this series of videos. Merely announcing she was going to look at these tropes caused a reaction that was noticeably sexist, visceral, and enduring. Let's find out what all the hoopla is about. If everyone is ready, we can move on to installment 3 and then wrap up the discussion of the Damsels in Distress trope.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

I wish I knew enough about gaming, or was enough of a gamer (I'm actually a non-gamer) to be able to assess Anita Sarkeesian's analysis.

But anyways, I read that critique and could appreciate that it appeared to make a few interesting points.

My general impression is that there is sexism in gaming. How much, I really don't know. Probably/hopefully less than there once was.

As to AS's take on it, my guess is that it hits a few nails on the head and misses others, that it's accurate up to a point, but that she may have taken it too far, in the sense of generalising/universalising/simplifying it and in terms of concluding that the DID trope is necessarily a bad thing. Of course, it is a bad thing in some respects (imo) but feminism (generally) tends only to see that side of it. If you asked me, I'd say that it's multi-faceted. That said, if you asked me to give it a weighting, I'd say that on balance it's more harmful than it is benign.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Gamergate completely destroyed whatever credibility she had left. Her attempt to ride out the criticism and pull the victim card, made me lose all respect for her. Her defences were pathetic. I saw through her completely. There's loads of these kinds of journalists. Let's call her a journalist... because that's what she is. They pick a position and then filter reality to fit that position and then get angry and upset about it. Without ever engaging with reality or having anything of any genuine to say.

Are you saying that she's said something of value since? Really? If you say so, I'll give it a go. Are you?

As I said earlier, I started this thread so we'd have a place to discuss Sarkeesian's actual work. If you haven't yet watched the first installment you should consider doing so before commenting, because ignorance of her actual research and commentary will quickly become apparent.

Have you watched Damsels in Distress Part 1, or not?

Ok, watched it. She makes zero analysis. Critical or otherwise. She just regurgitates extremely basic and generally accepted feminist concepts.

She doesn't explain why it is bad. She doesn't hypothesize what it might lead to. She doesn't refer to feminist thinkers who have made such work. There's zero nuance.

Ok, so it's not serious academic work. It's intended to be easy digestible popcorn for the masses. Then why is it so fucking boring? These jokes write themselves. It's inexcusable not to attempt it.

I thought it was dumb. Standard modern pop-feminism, made by somebody who hasn't read the feminist theories she's basing her work on. That's what I think

 

[Arctish]

Thank you Mumbles, ruby sparks, and DrZoidberg for providing feedback on the first couple of installments in Sarkeesian's series.

I agree with the assessment that so far it's pretty basic stuff, nothing really controversial and nothing really new. IIRC Sarkeesian builds up to more complex arguments as the series progresses and cites published works in psychology and sociology to support her arguments. I don't know how many times she refers to published studies or how effectively she uses them, but it might be scholarly enough to elevate the series beyond the entry level that Damsel in Distress appears to be. Or, it might not. Perhaps the entire series is entry level stuff.

I'm going to be watching Damsel in Distress Part 3 tonight, and then looking for commentary on all 3 installments.

 

[Arctish]

I've finished watching all 3 parts of Damsels in Distress. IMO there's nothing about her series so far that's all that controversial. She's talking about well known tropes, so well known that even if you don't know the name of the trope you can still recognize it. Her explanations are clear and the examples she supplies are abundant, more than enough to demonstrate how the trope is employed in various games. Also, her point that these games are an important part of modern culture and the storylines they contain reflect and reinforce cultural behaviors shouldn't be lost on anyone who grew up watching cop shows on TV.

I'm having a hard time finding thoughtful commentary on her series from her critics. I don't know if that's because most of her critics prefer ad hominems to analysis, or if it's because the search engines are filtering my results. Most of the results I'm getting are like this one, done by a guy calling himself G-O Show. Since he seems fairly representative of the Sarkeesian critics I'll go ahead and use his video as a starting point.

He starts off playing part of Sarkeesian's intro where she says "This project will examine the tropes, plot devices, and patterns most commonly associated with women in gaming from a systemic, big picture perspective" then he says "and by systemic and big picture she of course means biased, erroneous, opinionated, and inclusive of no one's perspective other than her own including not even allowing others to comment", pointing to her disabling of You Tube comments. Then he complains about how long he's been waiting for the next installment before getting around to talking about the actual installment he's criticizing. Both are ad hominem attacks. The one about the You Tube comments is particularly vapid but AFAICS a pretty common one among her critics.

He makes a somewhat valid point about rescue scenarios but I disagree with his claim that use of the Damsel in Distress trope is an "inevitability of writing narrative plots". I think it's just a shortcut for game developers who want to follow a tried and true formula instead of being creative and taking a chance with something new. Also, I don't agree that Sarkeesian fails to understand the difference between Primary and Secondary characters. Her issue with the Damsel in Distress trope isn't that females are relegated to being secondary characters, it's that Damsels in Distress aren't really characters at all. They're things. They are the object of the quest, not people caught up in them. The guys fight over them like pirates fighting over a treasure chest.

G-O Show ends his video by implying that Sarkeesian is being sexist because she doesn't mention that the male character cast in the role of Knight is also constrained by a gender role trope, as though she deserves to be criticized for not discussing the trope he wants to talk about instead of the one she's chosen. He's not the only one who does this. A while back we had another thread about Anita Sarkeesian where a poster linked to a video titled 8 Anita Sarkeesian FAILS by a guy who calls himself NateTalksToYou. Nate lists what he calls Sarkeesian's greatest fails in her Tropes vs Women in Video Games, ranked from #8 to #1. Number 5 on his list (starts at minute 9:08) is a criticism of Damsels in Distress Part 2 where Sarkeesian is talking about variations in the Damsel in Distress trope. She says these variations are created by blending the Damsel in Distress with other tropes to make the stories more 'edgy'. Sarkeesian calls the combination of the Damsel in Distress and the Mercy Kill trope The Euthanized Damsel and discusses it at some length. She points out that by asking the main character to kill them, the Damsels are literally "asking for it".

NateTalksToYou says Sarkeesian fails to mention that the "exact same trope happens to men as well". He then plays segments from 13 other games in which a male character begs the main character to kill him. What NateTalksToYou has failed to mention, or perhaps even realize, is that the reason Sarkeesian doesn't mention them is because they aren't Damsels in Distress. Yeah, they're imprisoned and yeah, they can't free themselves. But the Damsel in Distress isn't just a random character the hero meets. She's the reason the hero is fighting. And none of the examples NateTalksToYou provides fits that trope. Not even Prometheus. They're examples of the Mercy Kill trope, not the Euthanized Damsel.

BTW, I'm using the TV Tropes page on Feminist Frequency for reference on the tropes themselves.

I did find a really good opinion piece on Sarkeesian's series, Bound Women: Why games are better without a damsel to save.

The author makes several excellent points about character development and the challenges of making a game interesting and fun to play. IMO if Sarkeesian's writing came close to this level people would take her work a lot more seriously.

If anyone has a link to a critical analysis they'd like to share, please do. I'm going to push onward and watch the next installment sometime tonight or tomorrow but I'd be happy to discuss the first 3 at greater length.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've finished watching all 3 parts of Damsels in Distress. IMO there's nothing about her series so far that's all that controversial. She's talking about well known tropes, so well known that even if you don't know the name of the trope you can still recognize it. Her explanations are clear and the examples she supplies are abundant, more than enough to demonstrate how the trope is employed in various games. Also, her point that these games are an important part of modern culture and the storylines they contain reflect and reinforce cultural behaviors shouldn't be lost on anyone who grew up watching cop shows on TV.

I'm having a hard time finding thoughtful commentary on her series from her critics. I don't know if that's because most of her critics prefer ad hominems to analysis, or if it's because the search engines are filtering my results. Most of the results I'm getting are like this one, done by a guy calling himself G-O Show. Since he seems fairly representative of the Sarkeesian critics I'll go ahead and use his video as a starting point.

He starts off playing part of Sarkeesian's intro where she says "This project will examine the tropes, plot devices, and patterns most commonly associated with women in gaming from a systemic, big picture perspective" then he says "and by systemic and big picture she of course means biased, erroneous, opinionated, and inclusive of no one's perspective other than her own including not even allowing others to comment", pointing to her disabling of You Tube comments. Then he complains about how long he's been waiting for the next installment before getting around to talking about the actual installment he's criticizing. Both are ad hominem attacks. The one about the You Tube comments is particularly vapid but AFAICS a pretty common one among her critics.

He makes a somewhat valid point about rescue scenarios but I disagree with his claim that use of the Damsel in Distress trope is an "inevitability of writing narrative plots". I think it's just a shortcut for game developers who want to follow a tried and true formula instead of being creative and taking a chance with something new. Also, I don't agree that Sarkeesian fails to understand the difference between Primary and Secondary characters. Her issue with the Damsel in Distress trope isn't that females are relegated to being secondary characters, it's that Damsels in Distress aren't really characters at all. They're things. They are the object of the quest, not people caught up in them. The guys fight over them like pirates fighting over a treasure chest.

G-O Show ends his video by implying that Sarkeesian is being sexist because she doesn't mention that the male character cast in the role of Knight is also constrained by a gender role trope, as though she deserves to be criticized for not discussing the trope he wants to talk about instead of the one she's chosen. He's not the only one who does this. A while back we had another thread about Anita Sarkeesian where a poster linked to a video titled 8 Anita Sarkeesian FAILS by a guy who calls himself NateTalksToYou. Nate lists what he calls Sarkeesian's greatest fails in her Tropes vs Women in Video Games, ranked from #8 to #1. Number 5 on his list (starts at minute 9:08) is a criticism of Damsels in Distress Part 2 where Sarkeesian is talking about variations in the Damsel in Distress trope. She says these variations are created by blending the Damsel in Distress with other tropes to make the stories more 'edgy'. Sarkeesian calls the combination of the Damsel in Distress and the Mercy Kill trope The Euthanized Damsel and discusses it at some length. She points out that by asking the main character to kill them, the Damsels are literally "asking for it".

NateTalksToYou says Sarkeesian fails to mention that the "exact same trope happens to men as well". He then plays segments from 13 other games in which a male character begs the main character to kill him. What NateTalksToYou has failed to mention, or perhaps even realize, is that the reason Sarkeesian doesn't mention them is because they aren't Damsels in Distress. Yeah, they're imprisoned and yeah, they can't free themselves. But the Damsel in Distress isn't just a random character the hero meets. She's the reason the hero is fighting. And none of the examples NateTalksToYou provides fits that trope. Not even Prometheus. They're examples of the Mercy Kill trope, not the Euthanized Damsel.

BTW, I'm using the TV Tropes page on Feminist Frequency for reference on the tropes themselves.

I did find a really good opinion piece on Sarkeesian's series, Bound Women: Why games are better without a damsel to save.

The author makes several excellent points about character development and the challenges of making a game interesting and fun to play. IMO if Sarkeesian's writing came close to this level people would take her work a lot more seriously.

If anyone has a link to a critical analysis they'd like to share, please do. I'm going to push onward and watch the next installment sometime tonight or tomorrow but I'd be happy to discuss the first 3 at greater length.

I'm missing an explanation as to why these tropes are bad. Fiction is partly used to vent our frustration with the world. Because we can't do it in real life. That's why so many games are about murdering people. Yet somehow murder rates don't go up.

What's her argument for that these tropes affect society? What do the tropes mean in a wider context?

From her videos it's impossible, for me, to deduce what she wants. She doesn't even play these games, so it's obviously not about her wanting to play better games.

And the computer game industry is a massive industry. There's plenty of room for "feminist" developers. They certainly couldn't ask for a great pull in the market. Where are the games?

This reminds me of the porn industry when Internet came. In the 80's and 90's we all believed the story about porn actresses only doing it for money. They'd rather do something else, but were forced by circumstances. It was a trope.

Then Internet came, which flooded the market with easy accessible cheap/free porn. The high salaries vanished. Yet young women were lining up to get into porn in even greater numbers. So porn actresses actually do do it because they like the job (for whatever reasons). The old trope was wrong.

Which brings me back to my question. What does she want? What's she trying to say with any of this?

 

[Arctish]

I'm missing an explanation as to why these tropes are bad. Fiction is partly used to vent our frustration with the world. Because we can't do it in real life. That's why so many games are about murdering people. Yet somehow murder rates don't go up.

bigfield quoted part of the transcript in post #16 that I think answers your question:

"The pattern of presenting women as fundamentally weak, ineffective or entirely incapable also has larger ramifications beyond the characters themselves and the specific games they inhabit. We have to remember that these games do not exist in a vacuum, they are an increasingly important and influential part of our larger social and cultural ecosystem.

The reality is that this troupe [sic] is being used in a real-world context where backwards sexist attitudes are already rampant. It’s a sad fact that a large percentage of the world’s population still clings to the deeply sexist belief that women as a group need to be sheltered, protected and taken care of by men.

The belief that women are somehow a “naturally weaker gender” is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures. "

From her videos it's impossible, for me, to deduce what she wants. She doesn't even play these games, so it's obviously not about her wanting to play better games.

And the computer game industry is a massive industry. There's plenty of room for "feminist" developers. They certainly couldn't ask for a great pull in the market. Where are the games?

This reminds me of the porn industry when Internet came. In the 80's and 90's we all believed the story about porn actresses only doing it for money. They'd rather do something else, but were forced by circumstances. It was a trope.

Then Internet came, which flooded the market with easy accessible cheap/free porn. The high salaries vanished. Yet young women were lining up to get into porn in even greater numbers. So porn actresses actually do do it because they like the job (for whatever reasons). The old trope was wrong.

Which brings me back to my question. What does she want? What's she trying to say with any of this?

She says she started this project because she wanted to examine gender stereotypes in popular culture, specifically the representation of females in video games. She's interested in the topic, researched it, and made some videos.

I'm hoping this thread will be a discussion of the content of her video series rather than speculation about motives.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm missing an explanation as to why these tropes are bad. Fiction is partly used to vent our frustration with the world. Because we can't do it in real life. That's why so many games are about murdering people. Yet somehow murder rates don't go up.

bigfield quoted part of the transcript in post #16 that I think answers your question:

"The pattern of presenting women as fundamentally weak, ineffective or entirely incapable also has larger ramifications beyond the characters themselves and the specific games they inhabit. We have to remember that these games do not exist in a vacuum, they are an increasingly important and influential part of our larger social and cultural ecosystem.

The reality is that this troupe [sic] is being used in a real-world context where backwards sexist attitudes are already rampant. It’s a sad fact that a large percentage of the world’s population still clings to the deeply sexist belief that women as a group need to be sheltered, protected and taken care of by men.

The belief that women are somehow a “naturally weaker gender” is a deeply ingrained socially constructed myth, which of course is completely false- but the notion is reinforced and perpetuated when women are continuously portrayed as frail, fragile, and vulnerable creatures. "

So what are those rammifications? What difference does these video-game tropes make in the world, which otherwise wouldn't have been there?

It's only in the extremely safe low violence post-industrial world where the fact that women have 25% less upper body strength than men, is less of a problem. But it is still a problem. Also, a quite recent development. So socially constructed myth.... what? What fucking lunatic would say that?

She's just making vague statements, throwing out feminist slogans and letting the audience project onto her whatever it means. I'm guessing they're supposed to feel indignant and be angry and want to change the world?

She says she started this project because she wanted to examine gender stereotypes in popular culture, specifically the representation of females in video games. That's all we need to know about her motives. She's interested in the topic, researched it, and made some videos.

So when's she going to start? I see very little examination.

I'm hoping this thread will be a discussion of the content of her videos rather than speculation about the content of her character.

I think It's more interesting to discuss her character. It's also interesting why anybody would give her attention. She's just a random youtuber. I don't see what's special about her. Has she done anything to deserve attention?

Just watch talks by Judith Butler or Camille Paglia. There's loads of those on youtube. All genius right through. Sarkesian is adding nothing IMHO

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm missing an explanation as to why these tropes are bad. Fiction is partly used to vent our frustration with the world. Because we can't do it in real life. That's why so many games are about murdering people. Yet somehow murder rates don't go up.

What's her argument for that these tropes affect society? What do the tropes mean in a wider context?

With the caveat that my exposure to tropes and suchlike has mainly been through films (and also books, images, art and media generally) rather than gaming (or comics for that matter)...

Harm, especially subtle harm such as the effects of stereotyping, can be hard to measure (though I do agree in principle that the assertions could do with empirical evidence). How 'harmful' is it if you take your little daughters or sons into toy shops and an inordinate amount of the products are 'traditional gender-specific' with aisles of pink stuff for girls etc? I don't know, but imo it's not likely to be a 'good' thing. Ditto for tropes in gaming or elsewhere, if they're prevalent (that is to say if they dominate, and I would still say this even if the audience is mostly young men).

My general impression is that such tropes are not quite as prevalent or dominant as AS appears to say, that there is more variety, more strong female characters and weak male characters for example. That still might leave an issue, just not perhaps one as pronounced as one might think from watching AS.

.....young women were lining up to get into porn in even greater numbers. So porn actresses actually do do it because they like the job (for whatever reasons). The old trope was wrong.

I am really not sure if porn actresses mostly do it because they like the job. I'm sure some will. What proportion I don't know, but I don't think I'd make the general comment you did. I could be wrong.

A thread on porn tropes, anyone?

 

[ruby sparks]

What does she want? What's she trying to say with any of this?

I reckon she probably wants to make gaming less potentially sexist. Which I would be in favour of. Whether she's over-egging her case or not I don't know. I think she might be.

As to other, personal motives (such as fame and fortune etc) she might have those too but so do most people who gain them, so I wouldn't initially dwell on those aspects necessarily. She doesn't seem to me to be the worst potential example, but it's hard for me to tell.

I do hear that by her own admission that when she first got interested in the subject she was coming from a background of perhaps holding simplistic feminist paradigms, which may not have helped the balance aspect of her work, especially in the early stuff she put together.

 

[Arctish]

So what are those rammifications? What difference does these video-game tropes make in the world, which otherwise wouldn't have been there?

It's only in the extremely safe low violence post-industrial world where the fact that women have 25% less upper body strength than men, is less of a problem. But it is still a problem. Also, a quite recent development. So socially constructed myth.... what? What fucking lunatic would say that?

She's just making vague statements, throwing out feminist slogans and letting the audience project onto her whatever it means. I'm guessing they're supposed to feel indignant and be angry and want to change the world?

She says she started this project because she wanted to examine gender stereotypes in popular culture, specifically the representation of females in video games. That's all we need to know about her motives. She's interested in the topic, researched it, and made some videos.

So when's she going to start? I see very little examination.

We're barely into her series and so far the only indication you've given that you watched any of it was saying you watched the first one. If you haven't watched more of her videos it's no wonder you aren't getting much out of them.

I'm hoping this thread will be a discussion of the content of her videos rather than speculation about the content of her character.

I think It's more interesting to discuss her character.

It's also common technique Gamergaters use to justify their refusal to watch her videos while still attacking her for what they presume she said in them.

Instead of speculating about her character why not watch her series and see what she reveals about herself and her worldview?

It's also interesting why anybody would give her attention.

Indeed it is, which is why I started this thread and why I'm going to watch her videos. There's so much hatred for this women online. I'm interested in finding the source. I don't expect it to be in her video series since the vilification started when she announced the Kickstarter campaign to fund it, but it helps to understand what she does when trying to understand why people hate her for doing it.

She's just a random youtuber. I don't see what's special about her. Has she done anything to deserve attention?

Let's find out.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm missing an explanation as to why these tropes are bad. Fiction is partly used to vent our frustration with the world. Because we can't do it in real life. That's why so many games are about murdering people. Yet somehow murder rates don't go up.

What's her argument for that these tropes affect society? What do the tropes mean in a wider context?

With the caveat that my exposure to tropes and suchlike has mainly been through films (and also books, images, art and media generally) rather than gaming (or comics for that matter)...

Harm, especially subtle harm such as the effects of stereotyping, can be hard to measure (though I do agree in principle that the assertions could do with empirical evidence). How 'harmful' is it if you take your little daughters or sons into toy shops and an inordinate amount of the products are 'traditional gender-specific' with aisles of pink stuff for girls etc? I don't know, but imo it's not likely to be a 'good' thing. Ditto for tropes in gaming or elsewhere, if they're prevalent (that is to say if they dominate, and I would still say this even if the audience is mostly young men).

My general impression is that such tropes are not quite as prevalent or dominant as AS appears to say, that there is more variety, more strong female characters and weak male characters for example. That still might leave an issue, just not perhaps one as pronounced as one might think from watching AS.

It's not just hard to measure, but hard to track to an actual impact. Here's a theory. Men and women are biologically psychologically different. Not a tremendous amount. But enough to make a difference. But we usually like to be even more different, ie more extreme in our gender expression. So we use culture to emphasize those innate differences. That's why we gender a lot of practices and items unnecessarily. That's why women in fiction might have their femininity exaggerated.

I think men have a strong instinct toward protecting women and children. I know I do. I've been in dangerous situations where I'm about to jump into the water or leap out into traffic, but see a microsecond later that it's a man and think "fuck that guy". If the woman is pregnant or it's a very young child it's even stronger. I remember a three year old child walking right out into a pool and the kid was dangling from my arm well before my conscious mind was aware of what was happening. Yesterday I saw a pregnant woman on a bike in heavy traffic, and I had to look away since it was bothering my protective instincts. This is all on such a basic level that I've a hard time seeing how this could be learned behaviour. I don't think it is.

I think women have the same instincts as men. What sets us apart is to the degree they are expressed. That's why I think there's the idea that men and women are just the same comes from. And where the idea that all differences are learned comes from.

Anyhoo... if you have this worldview then all the gendered tropes in videogames make perfect sense... and above all... are not a problem in the least. And if you do want to have a gender bending character that moves beyond traditional gender stereotypes... there's a huge market for it. As proven by all the queer/non-gender stereotyped characters out there. The sci-fi world is full of them. Good luck finding contemporary sci-fi without at least one tomboy or gay character.

My point is that there's no reason to see gender stereotypes as a problem in society. Sarkesian makes zero attempt to argue for it.

.....young women were lining up to get into porn in even greater numbers. So porn actresses actually do do it because they like the job (for whatever reasons). The old trope was wrong.

I am really not sure if porn actresses mostly do it because they like the job. I'm sure some will. What proportion I don't know, but I don't think I'd make the general comment you did. I could be wrong.

Why else would they be doing porn? There's barely any money in porn any longer. Porn actresses are highly motivated to make it in the industry in spite of their not being any money in it. They still do their best to spread the myth that they got into for the money, because there's still shame about women enjoying sex or being slutty. Not to mention the social stigma ex-porn actresses face. They need to be able to have a sob story about how circumstances forced them into this, if they want to be accepted back into polite society. There's still a huge problem regarding pornstars fucking up any hopes of any other kind of career because of this early life's passion.

There's the odd porn-girl here and there who manage to find a way to work the system to their benefit and get rich. But that requires incredibly shrewd ladies capable of long term planning. Like Sasha Grey. But she still did it because she liked doing porn. She just found a way to get rich from doing what she loved.

 

[DrZoidberg]

We're barely into her series and so far the only indication you've given that you watched any of it was saying you watched the first one. If you haven't watched more of her videos it's no wonder you aren't getting much out of them.

I watched the first one because you recommended it. I watched the second one because I was in the swing of it, but it was just more nonsense IMHO. Then I stopped because I doubted it would get better.

Why don't you recommend me a video then?

It's also interesting why anybody would give her attention.

Indeed it is, which is why I started this thread and why I'm going to watch her videos. There's so much hatred for this women online. I'm interested in finding the source. I don't expect it to be in her video series since the vilification started when she announced the Kickstarter campaign to fund it, but it helps to understand what she does when trying to understand why people hate her for doing it.

Hate is a strong word. But I still think people's dislike of her is deserved. To me she just comes across as a demagogue trying to get some attention (and money) by poisoning the world by spreading ideas that I don't think she understands. I have a hard time seeing her as the good guy here.

I recommend you read Judith Butler's Gender Troubles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Trouble

It's the best work of feminist analysis I've ever read. She's also pretty much the patron saint of feminists like Anita Sarkesian. So it's not like I'm trying to convince you of the other side. It's more like it'll help you better understand what Anita Sarkesian is saying. I'm a huge Butler fan.

Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia is another militant feminist classic. She tries to explain why our are the way they do. Something Sarkesian can't be bothered to do. It's a brilliant book IMHO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Personae

 

[ruby sparks]

It's not just hard to measure, but hard to track to an actual impact. Here's a theory. Men and women are biologically psychologically different. Not a tremendous amount. But enough to make a difference. But we usually like to be even more different, ie more extreme in our gender expression. So we use culture to emphasize those innate differences. That's why we gender a lot of practices and items unnecessarily. That's why women in fiction might have their femininity exaggerated.

I think men have a strong instinct toward protecting women and children. I know I do. I've been in dangerous situations where I'm about to jump into the water or leap out into traffic, but see a microsecond later that it's a man and think "fuck that guy". If the woman is pregnant or it's a very young child it's even stronger. I remember a three year old child walking right out into a pool and the kid was dangling from my arm well before my conscious mind was aware of what was happening. Yesterday I saw a pregnant woman on a bike in heavy traffic, and I had to look away since it was bothering my protective instincts. This is all on such a basic level that I've a hard time seeing how this could be learned behaviour. I don't think it is.

I think women have the same instincts as men. What sets us apart is to the degree they are expressed. That's why I think there's the idea that men and women are just the same comes from. And where the idea that all differences are learned comes from.

Anyhoo... if you have this worldview then all the gendered tropes in videogames make perfect sense... and above all... are not a problem in the least. And if you do want to have a gender bending character that moves beyond traditional gender stereotypes... there's a huge market for it. As proven by all the queer/non-gender stereotyped characters out there. The sci-fi world is full of them. Good luck finding contemporary sci-fi without at least one tomboy or gay character.

My point is that there's no reason to see gender stereotypes as a problem in society. Sarkesian makes zero attempt to argue for it.

I think you're probably way understating the case for there being adverse effects. And by dwelling on 'gender stereotypes' you're leaving out the sexism that is often associated with them in the real world, or society, as you put it. I'm not saying it's a simple yes or no (for example chivalry can be benign and/or repressive, or a bit of both) but you're painting too rosy a picture imo. You are in fact more or less saying there aren't any significant problems.

Why else would they be doing porn? There's barely any money in porn any longer. Porn actresses are highly motivated to make it in the industry in spite of their not being any money in it. They still do their best to spread the myth that they got into for the money, because there's still shame about women enjoying sex or being slutty. Not to mention the social stigma ex-porn actresses face. They need to be able to have a sob story about how circumstances forced them into this, if they want to be accepted back into polite society. There's still a huge problem regarding pornstars fucking up any hopes of any other kind of career because of this early life's passion.

There's the odd porn-girl here and there who manage to find a way to work the system to their benefit and get rich. But that requires incredibly shrewd ladies capable of long term planning. Like Sasha Grey. But she still did it because she liked doing porn. She just found a way to get rich from doing what she loved.

Sorry. Still not convinced that's anything more than your personal opinion. Happy to be wrong, and do accept that some women will be in porn because they like the work, but I'd need some objective evidence for your general conclusion.

 

[ruby sparks]

Personally, I don't really get why she has drawn quite so much hostility.

The nearest analogy I can think of in a sphere I'm more familiar with (film) is the Bechdel Test. That doesn't seem to be seen as so controversial, even though the potential exists for it to annoy a lot of film fans for similar reasons. I'm not saying it's a really good, accurate or necessarily popular test, in a similar-ish way that perhaps AS's 'tropes' are not exactly rigorous analyses. But the Bechdel Test is out there and 'AS Gaming Tropes' is out there and......the sky has not fallen down on the earth.

I believe some do try to apply the B Test to games these days.

 

[ruby sparks]

.....young women were lining up to get into porn in even greater numbers. So porn actresses actually do do it because they like the job (for whatever reasons). The old trope was wrong.

I have been doing some googling and finding some interesting studies. This one generally supports what you were saying, so maybe you were more right than I thought:

Characteristics of Pornography Film Actors: Self-Report versus Perceptions of College Students
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Report_versus_Perceptions_of_College_Students

"Regarding the typical female porn star, there was an additional difference where college students underestimated the self-reported enjoyment of work provided by women in the adult entertainment industry. Although students estimated that female porn stars enjoyed their work, it was not quite as high as reported by actual porn stars. The high rating(i.e., 8.50) lent support to the idea that the porn stars that completed this survey instrument did, in fact, enjoy their work. Further examination shows that only 9 women (5 %)reported a score of five or less. Prior work (Evans, DeCicco &Cowan, 2001; Polk & Cowan, 1996) suggested that women would not like their work because of being coerced into performing. In fact, 59 (34 %) female porn actors responded with a rating of 10 on the question regarding how much they liked their work. Although the topic of coercion was not directly asked, it does call into question that all women were coerced into the pornography business as some have claimed....."


Male porn actors participating in that study had even higher levels of self-reported positives.


And another:

Pornography actresses: an assessment of the damaged goods hypothesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167939

The damaged goods hypothesis posits that female performers in the adult entertainment industry have higher rates of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), psychological problems, and drug use compared to the typical woman. The present study compared the self-reports of 177 porn actresses to a sample of women matched on age, ethnicity, and marital status. Comparisons were conducted on sexual behaviors and attitudes, self-esteem, quality of life, and drug use. Porn actresses were more likely to identify as bisexual, first had sex at an earlier age, had more sexual partners, were more concerned about contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD), and enjoyed sex more than the matched sample, although there were no differences in incidence of CSA. In terms of psychological characteristics, porn actresses had higher levels of self-esteem, positive feelings, social support, sexual satisfaction, and spirituality compared to the matched group. Last, female performers were more likely to have ever used 10 different types of drugs compared to the comparison group. A discriminant function analysis was able to correctly classify 83% of the participants concerning whether they were a porn actress or member of the matched sample. These findings did not provide support for the damaged goods hypothesis.

If there's general, widespread truth to this, I admit I'd be surprised but I'd be pleased.

Ok this was slightly off topic so I'll not add anything here in this thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Personally, I don't really get why she has drawn quite so much hostility.

The nearest analogy I can think of in a sphere I'm more familiar with (film) is the Bechdel Test. That doesn't seem to be seen as so controversial, even though the potential exists for it to annoy a lot of film fans for similar reasons. I'm not saying it's a really good, accurate or necessarily popular test, in a similar-ish way that perhaps AS's 'tropes' are not exactly rigorous analyses. But the Bechdel Test is out there and 'AS Gaming Tropes' is out there and......the sky has not fallen down on the earth.

I believe some do try to apply the B Test to games these days.

I don't think the Bechdel test would work very well for games. Most conversation is between the player and a character, not between two characters.

 

[Arctish]

I watched the first one because you recommended it. I watched the second one because I was in the swing of it, but it was just more nonsense IMHO. Then I stopped because I doubted it would get better.

Why don't you recommend me a video then?

Indeed it is, which is why I started this thread and why I'm going to watch her videos. There's so much hatred for this women online. I'm interested in finding the source. I don't expect it to be in her video series since the vilification started when she announced the Kickstarter campaign to fund it, but it helps to understand what she does when trying to understand why people hate her for doing it.

Hate is a strong word. But I still think people's dislike of her is deserved. To me she just comes across as a demagogue trying to get some attention (and money) by poisoning the world by spreading ideas that I don't think she understands. I have a hard time seeing her as the good guy here.

I recommend you read Judith Butler's Gender Troubles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Trouble

It's the best work of feminist analysis I've ever read. She's also pretty much the patron saint of feminists like Anita Sarkesian. So it's not like I'm trying to convince you of the other side. It's more like it'll help you better understand what Anita Sarkesian is saying. I'm a huge Butler fan.

Sexual Personae by Camille Paglia is another militant feminist classic. She tries to explain why our are the way they do. Something Sarkesian can't be bothered to do. It's a brilliant book IMHO.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_Personae

So you watched the first two, decided that it was "just more nonsense", but think people's dislike of her is deserved because "she just comes across as a demagogue trying to get some attention (and money) by poisoning the world by spreading ideas that I don't think she understands."

That's a lot of condemnation there. You think she deserves people's dislike because she's spreading ideas she doesn't understand? If she understood them better, in what way would that impact people sending her death threats, rape threats, threatening to shoot people who attend her speaking engagements, etc.? Do you think they're angry because she's not doing a good enough job of expressing feminist thought?

I feel that you're asking me to provide rational reasons, justifications, and explanations of why Gamergaters hate her. These things might not exist. The reaction to her series might be (and probably is) completely irrational. The threats may be (and almost certainly are) completely unjustified. And the reason some folks hate her could lie entirely within themselves and their worldview, and have almost nothing to do with her personally.

I think it's likely we will find that they hate her because they hate her, and that's why they hate her. But it's too soon to reach that conclusion.

In the past I've investigated claims and allegations against her as people presented them. Nothing came of those discussions. Part of the reason is that people who've heard of her usually have strong opinions regarding her. But I think part of the problem was the scattershot approach to her work. I'm trying to look the entire series in order and consider the criticisms fully and fairly. You don't have to watch any more videos if you don't want to, but I think it's premature to reach a conclusion about her work this early in the process.

 

[DrZoidberg]

.....young women were lining up to get into porn in even greater numbers. So porn actresses actually do do it because they like the job (for whatever reasons). The old trope was wrong.

I have been doing some googling and finding some interesting studies. This one generally supports what you were saying, so maybe you were more right than I thought:

Characteristics of Pornography Film Actors: Self-Report versus Perceptions of College Students
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Report_versus_Perceptions_of_College_Students

"Regarding the typical female porn star, there was an additional difference where college students underestimated the self-reported enjoyment of work provided by women in the adult entertainment industry. Although students estimated that female porn stars enjoyed their work, it was not quite as high as reported by actual porn stars. The high rating(i.e., 8.50) lent support to the idea that the porn stars that completed this survey instrument did, in fact, enjoy their work. Further examination shows that only 9 women (5 %)reported a score of five or less. Prior work (Evans, DeCicco &Cowan, 2001; Polk & Cowan, 1996) suggested that women would not like their work because of being coerced into performing. In fact, 59 (34 %) female porn actors responded with a rating of 10 on the question regarding how much they liked their work. Although the topic of coercion was not directly asked, it does call into question that all women were coerced into the pornography business as some have claimed....."


Male porn actors participating in that study had even higher levels of self-reported positives.


And another:

Pornography actresses: an assessment of the damaged goods hypothesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23167939

The damaged goods hypothesis posits that female performers in the adult entertainment industry have higher rates of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), psychological problems, and drug use compared to the typical woman. The present study compared the self-reports of 177 porn actresses to a sample of women matched on age, ethnicity, and marital status. Comparisons were conducted on sexual behaviors and attitudes, self-esteem, quality of life, and drug use. Porn actresses were more likely to identify as bisexual, first had sex at an earlier age, had more sexual partners, were more concerned about contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD), and enjoyed sex more than the matched sample, although there were no differences in incidence of CSA. In terms of psychological characteristics, porn actresses had higher levels of self-esteem, positive feelings, social support, sexual satisfaction, and spirituality compared to the matched group. Last, female performers were more likely to have ever used 10 different types of drugs compared to the comparison group. A discriminant function analysis was able to correctly classify 83% of the participants concerning whether they were a porn actress or member of the matched sample. These findings did not provide support for the damaged goods hypothesis.

If there's general, widespread truth to this, I admit I'd be surprised but I'd be pleased.

Ok this was slightly off topic so I'll not add anything here in this thread.

I'm happy I could help to bust a myth.

It's also double standards regarding this. When it comes to sex workers (porn performers and prostitutes) we demand that they love every second of their working day. Otherwise they're exploited victims. In the world in general it's precious few people who love their jobs. For a lot of people your job is something they suffer through just to be able to enjoy their weekends. I remember having a job as a salesman, selling kitchen wear. That job was truly soul-destroying. Sometimes life isn't fun. It usually isn't for anyone.

Since two years I live in Copenhagen. In Denmark prostitution is legalised. It's extremely normalised in this society. As a result women who work as prostitutes can be open about it, with very little stigma. I've ended up at parties here talking to women who work as prostitutes and are comfortable chatting about it. It turns out that they're normal people with the same kind of worries and issues as people in general. What a shocker!

There's just so many liberal myths about sex work all geared toward seeing them all as victims in need of saving. As there are myths on the other side about all sex workers being happy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So you watched the first two, decided that it was "just more nonsense", but think people's dislike of her is deserved because "she just comes across as a demagogue trying to get some attention (and money) by poisoning the world by spreading ideas that I don't think she understands."

I looked at Sarkesian's work when she started out. (2010-2012'ish?) As I think we all did? She got a lot of attention back then, in what led up to the so called "gamer gate". It was a wave of angry feminists who said a lot of nonsense and got almost no resistance because most people were afraid of being seen as women hating. Sarkesian was a part of this wave.

A lot of people reacted to the lack of substance of these feminists as well as the lack of resistance they got. Me included.

That's a lot of condemnation there.

As people get more attention we judge them more harshly. I think she gets what she deserves. I've read posts in this forum more informative than anything she's written. I don't think she deserves the attention she gets. She's not interesting enough.

You think she deserves people's dislike because she's spreading ideas she doesn't understand?

Yes. When men do it we accuse them (rightly) of mansplaining, and we call them out on their bullshit (or elect them presidents of America).

If she understood them better, in what way would that impact people sending her death threats, rape threats, threatening to shoot people who attend her speaking engagements, etc.? Do you think they're angry because she's not doing a good enough job of expressing feminist thought?

This is another pet peeve of mine. Anybody famous today gets loads of various threats on-line. Why? Because with the Internet there's zero threshold to do it and it's little risk of getting caught. Mostly drunk angry idiots with a phone or keyboard in their hands. Or just children. We haven't been given any reason to believe any threats against her have been serious.

And it's not just women. Anybody famous today gets this. Richard Dawkins has funny videos where he reads threatening messages aloud. Even comedians get death threats today.

I'm not condoning it. But there's no reason to believe that feminists are special in this regard. I've seen no evidence they're more hated than non-feminists on-line.

But it seems like it's only these feminists (ie people like Sarkesian) who are getting bent out of shape because of it. And that is interesting. They're trying damn hard playing the victim all the time. And that takes away their credibility IMHO.

Today it's less interesting to study why women have been opressed. The big ones have been well studied, it's been debated to death and we seem to have reached an agreement. The next step is to figure out what to do about it. Sarkesian doesn't seem to have anything to say on this?

I feel that you're asking me to provide rational reasons, justifications, and explanations of why Gamergaters hate her. These things might not exist. The reaction to her series might be (and probably is) completely irrational. The threats may be (and almost certainly are) completely unjustified. And the reason some folks hate her could lie entirely within themselves and their worldview, and have almost nothing to do with her personally.

I'm not, and I don't think there's a mystery here. I think the dislike for her is rational. I don't think she's as hated as she thinks she is. I think a fair comparrison is the hate that evangelical TV preachers get.

In the past I've investigated claims and allegations against her as people presented them. Nothing came of those discussions. Part of the reason is that people who've heard of her usually have strong opinions regarding her. But I think part of the problem was the scattershot approach to her work. I'm trying to look the entire series in order and consider the criticisms fully and fairly. You don't have to watch any more videos if you don't want to, but I think it's premature to reach a conclusion about her work this early in the process.

Just recommend something that is good, and I'll watch it. She markets herself as a public intellectual, and I think she's a fraud. I don't think she has anything intelligent to say. I don't think she's knowlegable enough. The only thing I think she's genuinely good at is getting attention. Which is cool, and is something that is hard. So hats off at her for that. I just don't think she is able to use the attention to say anything of value.