Ce sujet est fermé
Here's my problem with Sarkeesian. She believes there is an industry driven initiative to reduce women as objects and background characters so the largely male market can enjoy their male driven power fantasies of oppressing women and that fantasy of oppressing women eventually gets acted out in the real world through sexual assault, the same argument that violence in video games encourages violence in real life.
I disagree. I feel Anita points out that industry is a reflection of humanity's actions and that it relies on many of the same problematic tropes that implements and reinforces gender stereotypes by relying on these types of tropes. I don't feel the industry goes "heh heh heh, time to try to convince everyone that women are objects." But rather that they make decisions, influenced by their own learnings, perspectives, and experiences, that end up having the consequences of objectifying women and how those experiences in media (video games or otherwise) are, in aggregate, compromising towards women.
As the video you link below has her saying, engaging in media doesn't suddenly "turn people into raging sexists." He also points out that Anita admits that she doesn't think video developers do this on purpose.
She criticizes Mario as a prime example of this sexism because he spends the vast majority of the time saving Princess Peach from Bowser, a kind of patriarchy battle with Peach as the prrrriiiizzzzeee. While criticizing the "overall sexist nature of the game industry" she conveniently forgets that:
1. Nintendo is from Japan, a different culture with their own views of the place of women.
2. Miyamoto doesn't care about plot only gameplay and so used one of the oldest story trope as a MacGuffin to get the game going.
1. That their culture is different than ours does not preclude someone from critiquing it. I feel many of the SJW critics feel the same way since they always remind me that there are bigger crimes against humans from other cultures that I should focus my efforts on instead, which is an implicit criticism towards other cultures. Unless they're just being coy and don't feel that it's an actual issue, which isn't a particularly flattering perspective to have.
I think slavery is another serious issue, and I don't think a culture is immune from me critiquing the culture for doing that even though their culture is different than mine. Just like it doesn't make our culture immune to critique from other outside influences.
This video in particular has her criticizing racy and mature games for having scantly clad women with constant titillating looping animations(which is more common and not only limited to women). She believes these games reduce women to "prostituted women"(which has earned her backlash from sex workers) who only serve only to empower the male gamer and to let him abuse them (despite the fact that these women Sarkeesian cite are in-game prostitutes and serve as mini games). This rebuttal video will clarify my point even more.
As for the video (this post is going to be huge as I basically respond scene by scene...)
I think we all consider ourselves pop culture critics, but I think it's an innocuous statement: she simply identifies as someone that critiques pop culture. I don't feel as though she's talking down to me as a gamer. If people feel this way, is it justified? If so, why? (legit question... please feel free to answer).
Yes, Anita wants to have a change on culture. I do too... I want gaming to continue to grow... even if it's mostly in large part for selfish reasons: I'm a gamer and I feel a gaming culture that grows will offer me more variety and ultimately more entertainment. Again, does this mean that I don't care about video games? I'd disagree. It's just one (of many) angles to take while looking at video games, especially if people want video games to be taken more seriously. Which is something that I do want to have happen.
As for breaking things down, it has its place. I wouldn't say it "glosses over" any more than it's a model used to focus efforts because looking entirely at the big picture can sometimes be very challenging. Yes it will not get everything, but neither does microeconomics attempt to explain every aspect of economics which is why macroeconomics as a field also exists. This distinction between micro and macrolevel break up is also common in sociology, political science, and psychology.
Further, Anita doesn't say that these actions *only* happen to women, but is viewing them as a part of the larger context. An example of a man dying doesn't disprove a trend. His follow up point echoes a focus on zombies. For better or worse, however, Anita's point is open ended. A more valid critique here would be to dig deeper into this point. Although this is a valid critique of macro scale social sciences in general.
The video so far has been fine, but he's starting to lose me at 11:40 when he is surprised that she's bringing it back towards domestic violence. Anita has already stated that she's looking at games as they exist within a greater cultural context, and has talked about the issues women have by discussing sexual violence. The point earlier of examining "is it as serious as Anita's facts indicate" is a good question to ask. But being surprised that she's tying the current point to the previous context she established shouldn't be surprising.
Yes, Anita is examining specifically violence against women when women are victims. There's an important implicit statement Anita makes by pointing out her exemption of violence against women on equal terms: not all violence against female characters is a problem. This is a statement I'd agree with. In fact, women are often targets in Fallout New Vegas, but they aren't targets because they are women nor are they (typically) being depicted as victims. They are NCR soldiers, Fiends, townsfolk, etc..
But he's muddying the point and conflating them inappropriately. We're now fighting a woman character because she's been transformed, and as such is being framed as a victim (unless she actively sought this transformation and betrayal). That the boss is capable of killing the player doesn't make this fight "equal footing." It's different than the clip Anita showed of a fighting game, and it's different from the examples I listed in NCR.
Yes they may be powerful, but they were forced to act against their will and now the player is killing them, and sometimes receiving thank you. He also points out that he doesn't feel that bosses are overwhelmingly female, but I don't recall Anita making that assertion. Her thesis appears to be that she finds it problematic that it's not uncommon for games to call for violence against a woman against her will (i.e. she's a victim and has lost her agency), and to frame it as being an altruistic event. I actually can't say how common this is (this would be a good angle to investigate), but it doesn't have to be a boss fight, and it doesn't contradict the idea that she has no problem with the fight being even. Neither point addresses any of her concerns. Instead we'd need to examine the circumstances that women are bosses, and what is the reasoning behind why the woman is now a boss character.
As for the logic baffling him, I think it's because he's not understanding what's being said. I will also agree that the narrative creates the justification. It isn't "random" killing of women. It comes back to looking at this in the greater cultural context: is this pervasive enough that it is actually a problem? To take this to extreme, if the only form of narrative that exists creates justifications for victimizing women then it doesn't matter if there's a "story reason" for it. It's about examining why this story reason comes up so much. Which goes back to my original paragraph that this isn't about "MUAHAHAHA OPPRESS WOMEN" but rather subtle influences that normalize violence against women as being just a thing that we shouldn't pay much attention towards.
To hopefully be clearer:
"To call them out for something, when you admit they're not doing anything wrong" is an incorrect deduction. The existence (and presumed prevalence) of these stories existing, is the issue. And that doesn't mean necessarily looking at ALL stories, but perhaps examining only stories that contain women. To use my earlier extreme, lets say there's a culture where dozens of unique tropes exist, but the only time women are involved in the stories is when they are victimized. So the counter analysis needed here is how common this happens to women in games when women are featured in games.**** (this comes up in a few paragraphs)
He then goes into a tone argument. I don't think criticism is invalidated if they are only pointing out faults without appropriate solutions. If this was the case, this forum's feedback section is fundamentally unnecessary because most people aren't really capable of suggesting appropriate, game specific suggestions that make sense because they lack so much context and information.
I do agree that diversity in gaming is helping. I'm a big fan of indie gaming and I love digital distribution because it removes barriers to entry. I like to think that video games are evolving more quickly than things like movies and whatnot too. But that's because they exist as part of a greater cultural phenomenon. The lessons learned from the past accelerate the future. It's why every new game doesn't have to start from Pong and go from there. Being a new narrative, or one that is moving quickly, doesn't mean issues can't still be pointed out. It probably means that the issues are still existing in other forms of media too, but that's beyond the scope of Anita's video, which is fine.
**** This is Anita's elaboration to the points above. It's not that women are bosses, it's about examining how they are framed and how and why they are written.
I think he understates the developer issue. BioWare's game have greater overall influence, and even if BioWare has more men than women, it doesn't mean we needn't be aware of the concerns women have in gaming. I mentioned this in a different thread, but I don't believe men and women are so different that there are fundamentally "things that only a man can like" that isn't socially constructed (as an aside, I think men are unfairly victimized by society in that being a feminine man is typically a reason for ridicule for many). As such, if my tastes contain things that fundamentally exclude women from enjoying it, it's possible I need to step back and reevaluate my world view. To be extreme, if my gaming tastes revolved around women in inappropriate armor to accent their sexuality, I think it's fair to have me examine *why* I find that appealing and whether that's an area for growth for myself.
As such, while I think that more women in gaming will help, I think it's still fair for men to reassess the content that they make. They don't have to change, but they may be criticized for that lack of change. They may be criticized for making the change. I changed.
I'll agree that Anita may be obfuscating the term "taken" as to whether or not it's ownership. Still, I think it's part of the high level, greater cultural analysis. I'm not sure if I agree that Anita would necessarily have issues with *everything* about the character, but when looked at as a whole, it becomes problematic. He is giving me the impression that Anita will never tolerate a woman that wears pink in a video game, when I don't think that that is the case.
He's tone arguing again. How she frames the issue isn't really relevant. She's pointing out that she feels it's a problem to simply take the male character model and throw on some stereotypical women features like a bow, makeup, and high heel shoes. Identifying the problem is fine. It doesn't offend me (and she's critiquing me!). Because YES, it's a problem when completely non-sexual thing must now have human female characteristics to be identified as a female. It's like Angry Birds which didn't have any implication of the gender of the birds, but then female birds came out and they had human female stereotypes used to "quickly identify" them as women.
This is a problem because it implicates: "To be identified as a woman, this is the stuff that you need to wear." This also marginalizes men, by the way, by suggesting that they can't and shouldn't be interested in these colours or apparel.
With respect to the subtitle saying "she means gay, bisexual, transgender," 'll admit I'm pretty new to the topic of gender fluidity, but I think the only thing correct here is transgender. A woman can be masculine and still straight. A man can be masculine and still gay. She's just talking about gender roles which is, to my understanding, not actually related to sexual orientation. I'll add a follow up post when I get confirmation.
With respect to the game picture, I can tell which is the woman character: she has eyelashes. The other ones don't. So I don't feel it debunks the argument she made. I do agree that aside from that the clothing is gender neutral and whatnot. It may not be the best example, but it's not an invalid one. I don't know if it is good or bad that he doesn't see the eyelashes.
Yes the game is you as a dragon kidnapping princesses. But Anita's point with regard to damsels in distress is that it's a common issue. This doesn't mean that damsel in distress can *never* be used, but she feels it is overused and as a result, it has problematic influences on our culture. It's an issue of "it's not any one game" but, again, looking at gaming as a whole as part of our cultural influences. Anita has always had a pretty macro perspective in my opinion. The game itself is mostly cute, but it does reinforce the trope. So the critique here I think goes back to "is the trope itself as common and as problematic as she states." It's not immune because it's buying into the typical medieval fantasy. It has its small piece of contribution as any individual game does (including BioWare's).
"Dragons have always been highly associated with princesses specifcially." No one disputes this. It's part of Anita's thesis and IIRC, she mentions that gaming is just one aspect. Damsel in distress doesn't exist only in video games. And as she states, that the game has this aspect doesn't mean that it can't still be fun, cute, enjoyable, and so forth. Just that it has its contribution to the breakdown of narratives in games and how women are used in them. They may not be "trying to make a statement here" but nothing is apolitical. Most "ism" is not "MUAHAHAHAHA, I will oppress you."
"Ease of visual identification" is simply an acknowledgement that this is a problem. I don't think he's intending to say that, but it's not a good thing if "woman has specific accessories to denote that they are a woman" because of the problematic aspects she hints towards. And as I stated, this reinforcement is bad for men as well. Part of the problem is that without these cues, it means that man is the default. The bathroom sign stuff is actually something that I wasn't really aware of, but I'm inclined to say it's part of the problem too! At least for the most part is' somewhat neutral, but it still says "woman is wearing a dress." Which is kind of funny today because I find women typically don't wear dresses.
I don't know if he's qualified to say whether or not something is or is not substantial for marketing. I like that we made the effort, but there's a thread on this forum of people that say "it's nice, but it's still lopsided." Which is fair.
And no, Anita is not saying that she wants her woman characters to look gender neutral. She's saying she likes that they don't have a reliance on the apparel and marking that typically denotes them as "a woman" in games (or media in general). 4 of the 5 characters shown still look clearly like women to me. I assume the one for Knytt Underground is the undead, skeleton looking thing? And besides, if you have to look really hard to acknowledge "yup, it's a woman" my response is mostly "who cares?" Unless you *don't* have to look really hard to acknowledge "yup, it's a man." (note, he didn't say this. He said male or female. To which I go "okay that's cool.")
As for his alarm, that's possibly because it's not typically an issue for him. And even if it's not an issue for him and is for other people, that's there prerogative. I don't find it alarming because someone says that they like to have a woman playable character. I prefer to play as a man myself. (side note, I loathe the "focusing on good gameplay" argument. It's not up to anyone to tell anyone else that what they value in games is not important).
The issue with the Chippendale style dancer isn't whether or not Chippendale style dancers have stereotypes, but rather how problematic those stereotypes are. Are Chippendale dancers often considered victims of domestic abuse in reality. The argument may not seem logical to him, but that doesn't mean that the distinction isn't there. Anita is just pointing out that simply swapping the character doesn't absolve them of the association (although I'd consider it better than nothing at all). I thought she explained this pretty clearly in the next clip he shows.
"Her problem isn't with gaming itself; it's with tropes and stereotypes in the world in general." I am actually quite shocked that he said this. To me it's so fundamentally obvious that this is the case. She's looking at video gaming within a larger sociocultural context and its influences and contributions to culture. So yes, she's concerns with the negative tropes and stereotypes that exist in the world and how they are used in the video game world. Every person inserts their own assumptions. It's why this video author feels the "Ms. Male" accessories is no big deal. Because society has taught him that that is the case and he's being reinforced about it with video games. Anita doesn't make the distinction that only video games causes this.
"Once again I think she's pushing harmful stereotypes." What??? She is NOT contradicting herself here. She's saying that while she feels that the trope is overused and has a lot of problems associated with it, that doesn't mean the trope should never, ever be used ever. I was fine throughout most of the video but the last few minutes is probably as jaw droppingly frustrating to me as Anita's are to many others. He is basically telling me that he doesn't actually understand what is being presented 
Yes the princess is the MacGuffin. A large part of Anita's presentation is that the woman exists solely to be the MacGuffin.... And that the overuse/prevalence of this MacGuffin is part of the larger issue.... He's actually echoing what I get out of Anita's videos.... I mean here's a woman: "A MacGuffin is something that the player wants, but has little or not plot behind it, we just know it's a valuable object." So yes, looking at it not in a vacuum, but in our sociocultural existence, Anita's saying the same thing. It's a woman that doesn't exist as a person... she's just an object. And in her opinion, it happens large enough that she feels it's a big enough issue to call out as being part of the larger problem that goes beyond just video games.
Yes, you could replace the princess with a diamond. So why don't we?
I "like" this though: "I can't bash Mario for bad storytelling. It's been around so long and they tell the same story every time." If Nintendo isn't so keen on bothering to write a good story, why do they go back to the same trope so often then? And is it potentially an issue if they do it so frequently?
No, the games aren't about the female characters. They're just using common tropes (the thing that the guy dislikes so much) that consistently have women becoming victims to motivate the male protagonist. Again, the issue here is analyzing whether or not this is valid within the greater cultural context and the influences from all other aspects of life, and whether or not it's a problem. Yes it's the loss of a loved one, but as someone that lost his brother, it doesn't always need to be the girl. And that's a large part of the problem. It happens so much it's become a trope.
"it's not about her character, it's just about driving the story forward." Yeah, and it happens *so* much. And if it always happens, is there any risk that we internalize anything that we see based on the prevalence of it. As he says, it could just as easily be someone else. But it almost never is. "Variety might be better, but is there really anything wrong with a stereotypical story as long as it isn't over used." Anita (and others) feel that there is, because it's influences carry on beyond just the game. As Anita said, it doesn't suddenly turn people into raging sexists, but how many of us now go "pink bows are a woman's thing?" That's pretty innocuous, but are there other problematic elements? As for the bolded part..... The entire point of videos is that the trope is overused, and that it may have consequences as a result.
Anita admitting that she doesn't think video developers do this on purpose isn't a problem. She's suggesting that, as part of our external influences (from video games and otherwise), we've internalized these tropes so much that we don't see them as an issue. They're just "storytelling devices" that don't have any impact or meaning beyond the game. Anita disagrees. The critique here would be about analyzing what level of influence video games (and the media has) in influencing how we see the world. I agree that I don't feel BioWare does a lot of the bad stuff on purpose. It just happens sometimes, and it can be useful to have someone point out to us: "Hey, that's a bit of a problem." Sometimes I agree, sometimes I disagree. But I do try to always understand where they're coming from when they say so.
Yes, the games are all about the player doing something. Which is why many women love RPGs, because they often get to dictate that it's a woman doing something awesome. Anita is just pointing out that a character like Peach doing something "helpful" isn't really a meaningful display of the strength of her character. She's still often just the object being chased for the story's narrative.
Books and movies still have the same problems such as damsel in distress.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the "GOTTA COLLECT THEM ALL feel" also extended to BioWare games to some extent? Regardless, didn't the books have Geralt as a horn dog?
BioWare is hardly immune (even Anita is not immune), so I don't consider the argument to be invalidated simply because we have done the same thing. Because, as stated, I don't consider the problem to be ostensibly an evil, moustache twirling "I want to undermine the power and influence of women! Muahahahahahaha."
Retour en haut
