What is the difference between Sexism/racism and things just being what they are?

[amadeuscho]

It's alright. :)

I wouldn't expect them to, nor try to force them to. Like I said, there are pros and cons to each. I just stand on a different side of the fence. Don't get me wrong, I think both approaches work.

And yeah, this is how I'm defining it. To me, humanism is simply universal equality amongst all humans.

You just feel that the male stereotypes are better. Men also have that pressure that they've got to be stronger, a reason why many, many males don't act how they actually are. My real point is that they're both frustrating.

To me, there are pretty much no roles genders have because our intelligence as humans allows us to reason that we don't. There's no reason a mother should be the caretaker and food cooker. I may be horribly mistaken, but it's true that in nature it is typical of the female to be the caretaker, yes? I think it would have remained this way for humans, but again, our intelligence allows us to move on from such primitive behaviors.

Saying they are both frustrating ignores how each stereotype impacts each gender differently. And ignores that the two stereotypes we are discussing comes from a larger societal gender role or expectation of that gender. I don't have an opinion which stereotypes are better in itself. I don't prefer any stereotypes at all. If a stereotype enforces a gender role, it isn't necessary. And as males tends to have more representation, the characters actually tend to be less of stereotypes as opposed to roles given to women in video games.

Individuals have autonomy, but greater societal pressures and expectations can persuade or force individuals into gender roles. Not every society today recognizes the individualism of the other gender. Remnants of the past can lead the parent generation to reinforce the role placed upon them into their children who might not subscribe to their roles. And there are several institutions of society that individual can be born into that place gender roles upon. So gender roles still very much exist; that's part of the problem of continuing to fortify them in media.

It actually depends what you mean by caretaker. The human societal role of caretaker is much different than the nature's innate role.

[Phoenix Wright]

Saying they are both frustrating ignores how each stereotype impacts each gender differently. And ignores that the two stereotypes we are discussing comes from a larger societal gender role or expectation of that gender. I don't have an opinion which stereotypes are better in itself. I don't prefer any stereotypes at all. If a stereotype enforces a gender role, it isn't necessary. And as males tends to have more representation, the characters actually tend to be less of stereotypes as opposed to roles given to women in video games.

How does it ignore anything? It's a broad statement that allows for deeper discussion if need be. Which, quite frankly, I'm not interested in having here. "Everyone deserves to be equal" is all I have really have to say. Going deeper than that is a discussion I personality don't care to have. Not because it's a soft spot or anything, I'm just not interested.

Individuals have autonomy, but greater societal pressures and expectations can persuade or force individuals into gender roles. Not every society today recognizes the individualism of the other gender. Remnants of the past can lead the parent generation to reinforce the role placed upon them into their children who might not subscribe to their roles. And there are several institutions of society that individual can be born into that place gender roles upon. So gender roles still very much exist; that's part of the problem of continuing to fortify them in media.

I wasn't saying gender roles legitimately don't exist. I was saying they don't exist to me.

It actually depends what you mean by caretaker. The human societal role of caretaker is much different than the nature's innate role.

Uh...how so?

[amadeuscho]

How does it ignore anything? It's a broad statement that allows for deeper discussion if need be. Which, quite frankly, I'm not interested in having here. "Everyone deserves to be equal" is all I have really have to say. Going deeper than that is a discussion I personality don't care to have. Not because it's a soft spot or anything, I'm just not interested.

I wasn't saying gender roles legitimately don't exist. I was saying they don't exist to me.

Uh...how so?

Because one stereotype occurs for one group quite a bit more in the media. It really doesn't make sense to compare the two. One problem is worse than the other. But yeah, it's not a discussion we need to have here.

Gotcha. It seemed broader because the "our" and "we."

The role of caretaker has changed with the changes in society. Even in nature, there can be differences in the roles of mother and father. There are several dads take up the caretaker role, like the penguin. If you mean just humans, it depends on when we stopped being "in nature" or gained the ability to act differently.

[Espinosa]

That's clear harassment. The few jokes that are displayed are obvious personal attacks.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/harassment

1. To irritate or torment persistently.

2. To wear out; exhaust.

3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.

At least one user (almost certainly more) flagged her video for terrorism, which is just bizarre. It's fine if people disagree with her, but it's another thing to just drop everything and make no effort to argue.

The comment about terrorism is clearly poking fun at her ridiculous attitude to the subject and the same can be said about many others quoted. Just because something irritates you doesn't mean it was intended to be harassment. The way she reacts to those stupid comments about the kitchen just goes to prove she's a gullible tool and discredits her ideology further (as if it were even needed).

Poe's law and all, but if you have even the basic notion of reading between the lines and a decent internet background then there's very little ambiguity about the intentions of many of these posters who posted silly one-liners.

Her understanding of harassment reeks of lunacy and rivals Erik Ribsskog's really. If she does feel harassed by those stupid comments, then she deserves that feeling for being such a fucking embarassment.

[Blademaster!]

I like the part where you made an actual evidence-based argument.

What kind of evidence do you want? Something like this: http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html or the case of Abigail Fisher? The fact that Anita's videos don't let you comment on them on You Tube because of all the bad reception she was receiving?

[Redwall]

The comment about terrorism is clearly poking fun at her ridiculous attitude to the subject and the same can be said about many others quoted. Just because something irritates you doesn't mean it was intended to be harassment. The way she reacts to those stupid comments about the kitchen just goes to prove she's a gullible tool and discredits her ideology further (as if it were even needed).

Poe's law and all, but if you have even the basic notion of reading between the lines and a decent internet background then there's very little ambiguity about the intentions of many of these posters who posted silly one-liners.

Her understanding of harassment reeks of lunacy and rivals Erik Ribsskog's really. If she does feel harassed by those stupid comments, then she deserves that feeling for being such a fucking embarassment.

Are you kidding me. If a cis-het man said things other men disagreed with, people would generally try countering that person's arguments instead of mocking her for her gender. There is a video game in which the goal is to beat her up; her Wikipedia page was vandalized; she has received death threats; come on, dude.

What kind of evidence do you want? Something like this: http://victorsopinion.blogspot.be/2013/07/anitas-sources.html or the case of Abigail Fisher? The fact that Anita's videos don't let you comment on them on You Tube because of all the bad reception she was receiving?

Missing the point, friend. I want to see something that actually takes apart her arguments that female tropes exist in video games (a claim that, while possibly contentious, doesn't strike me as particularly offensive, certainly not enough to compel someone to make a computer game in which the player beats her up). If you reread your other post, you will find that you have made no effort to actually counter her arguments, instead trying to smear her reputation.

And really, you didn't need to post that link, since I believed you the first time when you said she took footage from other LPs. However, a) that doesn't make her arguments any more or less valid and b) time is money, and it would have been irrational for her to waste time setting up equipment and getting to the relevant parts of the video games featured. If I wanted to record Zelda's kidnapping scene in OoT and don't have a save there, I'm sure as heck not going to play through the eight or so dungeons required to get to that point when I'm on the clock. And although it was a mistake for her not to cite the LPs, that doesn't actually change the accuracy (or lack thereof) of her arguments. Try attacking her arguments instead of her credibility.

"Bad reception?" She was getting nothing but rape jokes and harassment on her comments section of her Kickstarter video; really, what good would have come out of allowing these comments when any serious comments would invariably have been crowded out by the tsunami of one-liners? Any serious commenter would receive more attention by making a critique in his or her own corner of the Web. Conservative economist Greg Mankiw also disables comments on his blog, yet the same folks criticizing Sarkeesian for doing the same generally don't have any problem with Mankiw's choices.

You haven't mentioned what you're trying to show with Fisher v. Texas.

[Phoenix Wright]

Gotcha. It seemed broader because the "our" and "we."

The role of caretaker has changed with the changes in society. Even in nature, there can be differences in the roles of mother and father. There are several dads take up the caretaker role, like the penguin. If you mean just humans, it depends on when we stopped being "in nature" or gained the ability to act differently.

Let me clarify a little more. I don't think we should force gender roles onto people. There's no logical reason for them to exist at this point.

Overall, it's the mother that takes care of the young. If I'm not mistaken it far outnumbers the fathers in nature that are caretakers. There's exceptions, sure, but they are few in number. Like the male seahorse that gets pregnant instead. Or the wolf spider that sometimes cannibalizes its young.

[Espinosa]

If a cis-het man said things other men disagreed with

I'm sad you even use 'cis-het' for any purposes other than ridicule but okay.

She was being ridiculed for her assinine views not her gender. Lines like 'go back to the kitchen' are humour, as tasteless as it may be. You need to be selectively blind to ignore the fact that anyone who will make an ass of themselves regardless of gender will be ridiculed, especially on the internet. A feminist making an ass of themselves (it rolls off the tongue easily for me so this has to be a common collocation) will get the same treatment as anybody else.

You remember that Chris-chan guy? Was he gay? A woman? Perhaps of an 'unpopular' ethnic, religious or racial background? Neither. If a "male feminist" (those do exist as I was surprised to learn half a decade or so back) voiced the same views in the same manner, the treatment would be precisely the same.

Saying that those shitty "lulzy" jokes are an instance of misogyny against women is the same as saying the Chris-chan phenomenon depicts child abuse, or that someone making fun of furfags' goofy behaviour is involved in animal cruelty.

people would generally try countering that person's arguments instead of mocking her for her gender

Welcome to planet Earth my friend, enjoy your stay. Is this your first or second day here?

People aren't "generally" expected to engage in an argument with anyone; in fact, you will discover debates rank low on most people's lists of pastimes to engage in.

People will do whatever. Somebody defending ridiculous views does not magically require others to sit down and make a coherent presentation stating the obvious or debunking or whatever. If a clown has exposed themselves as such, it can be rightfully pointed out.

I can understand if Olwen expressed a view along the lines of "if you disagree with me then you must involve yourself in a disciplined academic debate with me with great scrutiny, cover all my points, cite your sources oh and you must have a logic degree", but I'm dealing with a socially adequate person here so perplexed I ask you directly - do you honestly believe that a nonsensical argument requires a serious response? Because jokes are a natural reaction to the absurd, and I don't see what's wrong with this. Enlighten me.

There is a video game in which the goal is to beat her up; her Wikipedia page was vandalized; she has received death threats; come on, dude.

She has received excessive negative attention for expressing idiotic views. The fact she even deserves a wikipedia page is depressing but I'm sure there are rich masturbaters who are open-minded and progressive enough to support a laughable cause such as... 'misogyny in 'video game culture' (and here I thought gaming is a hobby shared by people of different cultural backgrounds)'. You honestly insist that something like this should be taken seriously? I'd like to see you with a straight face typing that response.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Espinosa

[Rehab]

This is the first time I've ever heard anybody say there's no such thing as gaming culture.

Gaming is a huge medium, and has more than enough hugely populated sites dedicated to keeping track of it and analyzing it for us to consider it to have aculture of its own, at this point. Arguments and tracts about "gaming culture," on multiple sides, regarding both the makers, the players, and their interactions, are everywhere, on every major gaming publication site.

Some patterns and memes (not the 4chan definition, the psychology "unspoken assumptions about how things be" definition of memes) have emerged in many of them. "Jokes" about how women are worse at games and don't really play them (and/or "can't" really play them) are as easy to find as wandering around on Steam community message boards for a bit, and the assumption that few enough women play games to merit much attention payed to them has even made it here to sf, and to this very thread, no less.

I don't exactly need to cite Sarkeesian for this shit.

Have you heard of Cross Assault, if I may ask? Some people literally claim not only that sexual harassment is part of at least a subset of video game culture, but that excising it would be harmful.

Quote a coach: "If you don’t like onions, you get your sandwich without onions on it, man. This is the fighting game community."

Edited August 28, 2013 by Rehab

[Espinosa]

Games or gaming cannot be blamed for the upbringing (or lack thereof) of specific participants and whatever individual choices they make. Fighting game pros misbehaving points to fault with the bigger culture(-s) they come from. The same applies to things like team sports where players with delusions of grandeur commit atrocities (look up Eliza Samudio; just don't do it on a porn site).

One can play Tekken and whatever else (I've been playing Tekken 6 PSP since I got it a couple months ago) without being anything like the bigoted coach, and I don't see how sharing a game in common results in any cultural exchange.

[Zkirsche]

I will point out that there are people that have picked apart Sarkeesian's arguments. As for criticisms of Sarkeesian herself, the second part of that series addresses that well.

This video doesn't address that many games use the damsel in distress trope, but really that's just one side of a coin. The other side of the coin you could see it as is that it is supposed to show men that you are indeed supposed to care about your loved ones and fight for them and not be the emotionally detached person that society wants you to be. If you ask why women can't play that role, it's because boys have an easier time relating to guys than women.

These games aren't meant to degrade women, and I would argue that they don't degrade women, they're made to make a profit. The reason that there are so many rescue-the-woman storylines is that there's so many of them already in existance and they have been shown to sell regardless, not that there's some underground conspiracy or belief in the video game world that women are too weak to fend for themselves.

As for non-sarkeesian related topics:

Look at how commonly the "damsel-in-distress" plot impetus is still used, without a lick of a critical eye towards its execution

This is not true at all, if this topic alone is not enough to show that people have distaste for such a cheap storyline, I have read magazines which have criticised mario's plot saying it's just the "run-of-the-mill save princess peach scenario" followed by "but who cares, the gameplay is amazing".

As for whole Zelda argument, Zelda gets kidnapped in OoT and WW and so on because it's tradition, not sexism. Why the tradition was set up is because it's an easy to develop story line that gives the character relateable motivation while not interfering with the basic gameplay.

[Rehab]

I don't wish to say sexism or whatever is specifically the fault of video games, or any particular medium, but that the issues are present and affect them, in terms of how they're made, received, and shared. They're.. present. We deal with them on more levels than just "as gamers," certainly, but we don't all exactly leave them at the door, and they affect games in their own ways. I think we should be able to criticize inequality as it relates to games when we see it, not necessarily that inequality is inherent to or has roots in games.

And, well, that guy seems to think he's speaking for fighting game players, and responses like his have been cheered by his community of players. It's good to know he doesn't speak for you, but within his community, the sentiment he's defending is pretty easy to find and entrenched, even if it's a minority of people that play the games that are competitive and/or enthusiastic enough to identify as fighting game/Tekken players, and a further minority of that which is vocal in their defense of the sentiment. I certainly wouldn't assume every individual fighting game or Tekken (competitive) player is misogynist and/or an asshole (I've loved fighting games as spectator sports and as training-mode-porn timesinks for years, myself), but in aggregate, the reputation it has as such (at least over here in the states) is years-old and well-earned, if less by every single player being a jerk than by the silence of the ones who aren't, and the sheer volume of the thousands who are.

This is not true at all, if this topic alone is not enough to show that people have distaste for such a cheap storyline, I have read magazines which have criticised mario's plot saying it's just the "run-of-the-mill save princess peach scenario" followed by "but who cares, the gameplay is amazing".

whoa whoa I'm talking about the people who made the games and how there have been so many damsel-in-distress plots that are lazy about using the damsel thing to propel the story, not about the people who play and critique them, I know they've been groaning about executions like those up and down for years

Edited August 28, 2013 by Rehab

[Zkirsche]

how there have been so many damsel-in-distress plots that are lazy about using the damsel thing to propel the story

They're lazy because they are just used to propel the story. Game designers know that they're being lazy when they do it, but they don't care because ultimately they're not trying to tell a story to you, they're trying to make you play a game.

[Blademaster!]

Missing the point, friend.

You vaguely asked for "evidence" and I had no idea as to what you wanted evidence specifically of hence why I mentioned Abigail V. Fisher since that pertains to the actual topic at hand aka my last point about their being no line... I made no effort to counter her arguments because I just posted a summary as to who she is and the thought of providing specific examples never really crossed my mind as such. If you/anyone want(s) more info on her, (they should)go look her up if you/they want, but it honestly isn't worth doing at all in my opinion.

If you're credibility is being called into question, then that effects the impact that your arguments have, especially when it implies that you haven't even played the games you're talking about, since no one will want to take you seriously if that is the case. Bad reception is bad reception. She wouldn't have recieved so many death or rape threats that she had to close the comments section if her videos were more positively recieved, and even then this is just a small fraction of the negative feedback she has gotten that you can easily find on reddit, 4chan, or other gaming communities.

[Rehab]

Rape and death threats are not really acceptable as "negative feedback," though, they're abuse at "best" and worth being punishable by law. That she got them at all, her argument aside, is ridiculous.

(not that I'm saying they'd be acceptable for anybody to get, they're admittedly a sign of a problem that isn't limited to being sexism etc)

They're lazy because they are just used to propel the story. Game designers know that they're being lazy when they do it, but they don't care because ultimately they're not trying to tell a story to you, they're trying to make you play a game.

That doesn't really excuse it. They might as well not even have a story, if their only alternative is having a sexist one. I mean that worked well enough for the Scott Pilgrim game

Edited August 28, 2013 by Rehab

[Zkirsche]

That doesn't really excuse it. They might as well not even have a story, if their only alternative is having a sexist one.

They basically don't have a story. Double dragon has 7.5 seconds of setting the scenario then puts you in the action.

Additionally, I still don't think a damsel in distress is sexist. "Your loved one is being abused so go rescue her." is not derogatory to women.

[Samias]

As for whole Zelda argument, Zelda gets kidnapped in OoT and WW and so on because it's tradition, not sexism. Why the tradition was set up is because it's an easy to develop story line that gives the character relateable motivation while not interfering with the basic gameplay.

Tradition and sexism can go hand in hand. Having tradition doesn't exclude something from being sexist. It used to be traditional for Chinese women to bind their feet, because small feet were "attractive". Is that humane? Of course not. That's why we celebrate people like Dr. Sun Yat-Sen for denouncing the practice. Some people like to think of it as tradition that moms stay home and take care of children, but that just doesn't fit every family. My mom happens to make more money than my dad, and my dad happens to be the one who took care of all my extracurriculars because he worked less, and I wouldn't have it any other way. In fact, I hate the stereotype that mothers are more valuable to their children than fathers, because my dad took such good care of me and my sister.

What I'm getting at is that we shouldn't always be comfortable with the status quo. Even if you don't agree with Anita Sarkeesian, there is no reason anyone to bombard her with unfunny "jokes" and "joking" death threats for having an unpopular opinion on what we've accepted as "normal" in gaming. Why should we be happy when people use lazy shortcuts such as "The princess is kidnapped?" Having the princess get straight-up kidnapped with no sidestory in Paper Mario: Sticker Star absolutely murdered the game's fun factor for me and many other people. Watching Zelda, in princess regalia, get put on the sidelines and later kidnapped in Wind Waker despite the many, many moments where Link was helpless in Ganon's hands is completely nonsensical. Bioshock Infinite's real main character is Elizabeth, but due to some crappy focus testing she's been relegated to the distance on the default box art. The Last of Us had to fight for female focus testers because the people in charge of marketing didn't want to put the game in the hands of women at all. There is way too much focus on making dudebros happy, and it all entirely discredits the mental capacity of men at the same time if we assume they can't put themselves in the shoes of anyone but a white male. I'm pretty sure men can relate to something other than men rescuing women who merely exist as plot devices because the game designers couldn't come up with something better.

Also, women on the internet get harassment and death threats no matter what they do. They don't need to be Anita Sarkeesian to be told to "go die" or "gb2 kitchen". Look at Jennifer Hepler, who people EXPLODED at just because she mentioned she's bad at playing video games and wishes she could skip to the story bits. She later went on to write about her distaste for gaming culture's vitriolic treatment of casual gamers. Just look at the women outside of gaming who want to defend their reproductive rights. Go look at actresses who play unpopular characters and the hate trickles down directly to the real person behind the role. Hell, even returning to video games, there are women out there who don't even want to use their mics in-game because they don't want anyone to know they're female, just because it attracts assholes. When I played Ragnarok Online the mere act of having a female sprite attracted creepers who wouldn't stop stalking my character.

If you want a sample of what some industry people have to say about women gamers and how frustrating it can be to have respect, here you go.

[amadeuscho]

Let me clarify a little more. I don't think we should force gender roles onto people. There's no logical reason for them to exist at this point.

Overall, it's the mother that takes care of the young. If I'm not mistaken it far outnumbers the fathers in nature that are caretakers. There's exceptions, sure, but they are few in number. Like the male seahorse that gets pregnant instead. Or the wolf spider that sometimes cannibalizes its young.

Cool. I agree that gender roles should not be forced on people.

They basically don't have a story. Double dragon has 7.5 seconds of setting the scenario then puts you in the action.

Additionally, I still don't think a damsel in distress is sexist. "Your loved one is being abused so go rescue her." is not derogatory to women.

One instance in itself is not sexist. But a constant stream within gaming media does degrade woman in it. It can reflect a pervasive sexist attitude towards woman. I.E. that woman cannot protect herself. When Link is attacked by Ganon, he can defeat her. When Mario is attacked by Bowser, he can throw him by the tale. But Zelda and Peach are unable, despite the fact they have both fighting abilities within the canon of the games. The damsel in distress trope relies on the traditional gender role of a woman being unable to protect herself. That's the problem.

All the games we are referring to have a plot. A sequence of events is presented to us, and that is the game's story. Double Dragon isn't just about two brothers saving Marian. It's about the journey they go through from level to level to achieve that goal.

The problem with the damsel in distress trope is that it relies on a woman being in capable of something that a man can do. It reflects the idea that men are superior to women. Because in these games, men are heroes in video games and women are damsels in distress. Video games are not the only media that suffers from this problem, but that does not isolate them from criticism.

[Redwall]

People aren't "generally" expected to engage in an argument with anyone; in fact, you will discover debates rank low on most people's lists of pastimes to engage in.

If they were to respond (not that responses are necessary; as we both realize, obviously one could just ignore said argument entirely), then yes, I would either expect a serious response, even if it's one as wrong-headed as kirsche's, or, if one perceives the argument to be unserious (as you suggest), a humorous response that at least makes some attempt at a counterargument. Many of the comments are personal attacks directed not at Sarkeesian's arguments, but at Sarkeesian herself.

She has received excessive negative attention for expressing idiotic views.

She's received death threats; people have attempted to obtain her address and phone number; she's received in her inbox images of herself being raped by video-game characters; how are these consequences justified for someone who makes feminist videos?

The fact she even deserves a wikipedia page is depressing

Relevant.

but I'm sure there are rich masturbaters who are open-minded and progressive enough to support a laughable cause such as... 'misogyny in 'video game culture' (and here I thought gaming is a hobby shared by people of different cultural backgrounds)'.

It sort of is. How exactly do feminist videos do anything to upend this?

You honestly insist that something like this should be taken seriously? I'd like to see you with a straight face typing that response.

And I'd like to show you my straight face, but alas, I have no webcam on my computer.

If you're credibility is being called into question, then that effects the impact that your arguments have

Correct arguments need not have any impact on anyone (not necessarily saying that Sarkeesian's arguments are correct here). Credibility also means absolutely nothing when it comes to making a correct argument. We don't argue just for the sake of "impact" or "winning," we also argue with the eventual goal of constructing better and hopefully correct arguments. (edit 23:07 GMT: added in the words "just" and "also")

She wouldn't have recieved so many death or rape threats that she had to close the comments section if her videos were more positively recieved

Making feminist videos that impinge on no one's rights? I fail to see how that justifies death threats.

...no, really, thanks for the tip, I'll be sure to pass it along to her at the next big meeting.

and even then this is just a small fraction of the negative feedback she has gotten that you can easily find on reddit, 4chan, or other gaming communities

Any of it worth reading?

Additionally, I still don't think a damsel in distress is sexist. "Your loved one is being abused so go rescue her." is not derogatory to women.

No one else seems to think the damsel in distress is sexist in all cases, either. Have you watched Sarkeesian's videos? Sarkeesian herself said in her Damsel in Distress video, "Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value." The transcript is here.

And, obviously, tradition and sexism are not mutually exclusive.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Redwall

[-Cynthia-]

Here's the ultimate problem. Anything sexist against women is also sexist against men. Yes, Peach is helpless, but Mario is expected to drop EVERYTHING to go and save her and is a monster if he doesn't. There are two sides to the sexism coin to be sure.

I can't really agree with this statement. Let's say a game has a well-developed and varied cast of male characters and a single one dimensional, 'stereotypically female' character. That's not sexist to men at all.

Edited August 28, 2013 by -Cynthia-

[Zkirsche]

Tradition and sexism can go hand in hand. Having tradition doesn't exclude something from being sexist. It used to be traditional for Chinese women to bind their feet, because small feet were "attractive". Is that humane? Of course not. That's why we celebrate people like Dr. Sun Yat-Sen for denouncing the practice. Some people like to think of it as tradition that moms stay home and take care of children, but that just doesn't fit every family. My mom happens to make more money than my dad, and my dad happens to be the one who took care of all my extracurriculars because he worked less, and I wouldn't have it any other way. In fact, I hate the stereotype that mothers are more valuable to their children than fathers, because my dad took such good care of me and my sister.

For a tradition to be harmful or degrading, it will be harmful or degrading in every instance, it will not become harmful after being repeated multiple times.

Why should we be happy when people use lazy shortcuts such as "The princess is kidnapped?"

Because some gamers, myself included, believe story is there to complement the gameplay. If I wanted a deep and moving storyline I'd read a book or watch a television show: something that was intended to tell a story. FMPOV games are not there to tell a story, games are there to play the story. Long and ardous cutscenes are one of my biggest complaints about modern games.

WRT damsel in distress promoting negative attitudes, I don't believe the people who play these games are that impressionable. Not only would a child not think "oh typical a women needing to be saved" unless they were already an asshole but any adult with a brain does not let video game stuff affect their outside world relations which is exactly why people who play violent video games are no more likely to be violent. Video games are indeed in a vacuum, contrary to Anita's beliefs.

No one else seems to think the damsel in distress is sexist in all cases, either.

I never said "in all cases" I meant that I don't think it's sexist/derogatory to women full stop.

Edited November 2, 2013 by kirsche

[The Fush]

Sexism and racism are two of the few things I think that the world would lose nothing from not having.

If somebody points out that a certain trait/something is common among women/men, that's fine by me; that's just something being what it seems to be (though I would never used a solid "it is").

If they try to state it like "Men/women are *insert fact here*", then that's trying to imply that it's true among all men/women, which is then crossing the line to me.

[Samias]

For a tradition to be harmful or degrading, it will be harmful or degrading in every instance, it will not become harmful after repeated multiple times.

Repetition surely becomes more insulting the longer it's allowed to go on. If you're bullied a grand total of once, you'll move on and maybe even look back and laugh. If someone reminds you on a daily basis of your flaws and nothing ever changes, you'll begin to feel helpless and even begin to believe what you're being told. Repetition, even if it was well meaning, can even drive people to suicide. Media is NOT in a vacuum. The more you, the viewer, are exposed to repetition of ideas, the more you'll believe them. And in many ways, those ideas can be harmful. If you ever actually watched Anita's videos/read her transcripts she makes a point that you can enjoy the medium but you can still remain critical of the underlying message. She doesn't hate games. She's not out to get gamers. She truly believes that "womens as objects to be obtained" is not intended to be sexist by most people who create games. However, when presented with a similar storyline over and over, it's hard NOT to think "this is the structure of things" and decide not to examine the choices made with greater scrutiny.

[Vorena]

If somebody points out that a certain trait/something is common among women/men, that's fine by me; that's just something being what it seems to be (though I would never used a solid "it is").

If they try to state it like "Men/women are *insert fact here*", then that's trying to imply that it's true among all men/women, which is then crossing the line to me.

Its gotten to be a far more complicated mess too in recent years I think. I would like to believe an increasing number of people are recognizing that not everyone wishes to be labeled as strictly men or women. For example, I recall about a decade ago where in school surveys and other types of surveys usually always asked for your gender. It was a two category question. Female or Male.

Nowadays, I have heard from kids in school that surveys they do and even ones I have taken recently are adding in extra options. Male, Female, Other. Or they have a variety of other options. It seems to be on the rise for people to distingush between biological differences and personal preferences when it comes to gender. For biological topics I would say its quite true that when you refer to male and female near 100% of populations will adhere to those facts. In only an incredibly small percentage is it not true that XX leads to female physical characteristics and XY leads to male physical characteristics. Anything after this that is not a biological I would agree. Behaviors for example cannot be regulated to 100% claims. Biogical facts however tend to have near 100% claims.

A counter example though would be the release of particular hormones such as, but not limited to testosterone which starts the cycle for male physical characteristics. If these chemical pathways are inhibited its entirely possible to develop into a perceived sex. One person is given a XY chromosome, but due to the blocked chemical pathways grew up entirely to contain majority of female physical traits.

With biological things its a fine line to make 100% claims since in rare cases outliers exist, but they are quite rare and an "all" claim I do not think is all that unwarranted. Especially since there is no accurate way to distinguish in the English language between 100% from 99.99% or from 99.99% to over 50%. When you want to refer to 99.99% I'd go and say "all" as well. If some fact claimed 70% or so, then I would not say "all" at all. I'd simply go with "majority" or "most".

Edited August 29, 2013 by Vorena

[Zkirsche]

Repetition surely becomes more insulting the longer it's allowed to go on.

Only if it's insulting in the first place. Are you insulted by the fact that princess peach got kidnapped in the first place? If not, then why are you insulted that she got kidnapped 13 other times as if she has shown that she is capable of defending herself against it?

Media is NOT in a vacuum. The more you, the viewer, are exposed to repetition of ideas, the more you'll believe them.

Can you actually address the point instead of seeing me saying that VGs are in a vacuum and going "You're wrong".

If you ever actually watched Anita's videos/read her transcripts

Holy fuck you just saw me attack one of Anita's most beloved points about how "Video games are not in a vacuum" and yet you're still snarkily commenting about how I clearly haven't watched her videos. If you're not going to assume I'm intelligent enough to watch someone's videos before criticising them I don't see why I should take you seriously.

She truly believes that "womens as objects to be obtained" is not intended to be sexist by most people who create games.

That is not intended nor is it achieved by anyone who doesn't overthink it. Men think "These guys hurt the one I care about I must stop them" not "oh my god look at all these whiny bitches who can't take care of themselves, why are all women like this?", it's not sexist or downgrading until you decide to perceive it that way.