One interesting thing about the "Euthanized Damsel" trope that she mentions is that most of these are drawing directly from the end of season 2 of Buffy, except with the genders reversed. But whereas Whedon's "kill a loved one who has turned into a monster" trope is the end point of a narrative about an invasive and abusive boyfriend and explicitly grounded in Buffy's deep emotional attachment to him and need for personal safety (in addition to the usual "end-of-the-world" stakes), the trope's use against women in video games is, like "Fridge Girl," a cheap way to attempt to inject drama and emotional depth, largely as compensation for game writers' systemic (though not universal) inability to distinguish between emotional intensity and emotional depth. It's one more bad case of game writing aping screen writing without understanding that the change in medium requires a dramatic alteration of the way convention is employed.
I thought some of her points with Euthanized Damsel stuff were kinda stretching, pretty much saying you can't kill a female character because there is violence against women in real life....to sum it up bluntly....
I thought some of her points with Euthanized Damsel stuff were kinda stretching, pretty much saying you can't kill a female character because there is violence against women in real life....to sum it up bluntly....
Pretty sure she explicitly said the opposite of that.
Unless I tuned out something she didn't. She said even if the narrative explains this moment as something that has nothing to do with her gender and whatever it still doesn't matter and has to be looked at from the larger context. I'm not sure I see how if the female character is turned into a demon vampire and has to be killed by the male character that has any real effect on whether some Ahole beats his girlfriend...She makes that point in and around minute 18.
I mean the issue here is if there were more female main characters you'd see more dude's getting into this problem, even though I've seen enough Bromance games where you end up having to deal with your best male friend or father because he becomes evil..
But her other points are just fine, especially when they would change female protagonists to males for no really good reason (well I guess Money is a good reason....)
I thought some of her points with Euthanized Damsel stuff were kinda stretching, pretty much saying you can't kill a female character because there is violence against women in real life....to sum it up bluntly....
Pretty sure she explicitly said the opposite of that.
I'm pretty sure she did too. I definitely heard her say that it would be ridiculous to claim you can't ever kill a female character, and she supports that point by showing examples of games that handle death better than the average Refrigerator plot.
Her point about focusing on the larger context of things, I think, is not to say that said context should prevent use of the trope altogether. I think her meaning is that the context of pervasive use of the trope is indicative that a lot of people lean on it instinctively, and that that says something about culture's default thinking patterns around the positions of men and women in storytelling. The trope probably wouldn't be so bad if it were balanced out with more gender-flipped examples of it, or if it were more balanced out by other motivations or other tropes. Everything in moderation, yeah? As it is, this pattern exists and it does sadly parallel some of the real-life patterns of male entitlement and violence against women. I would agree that some of the more fantastical examples like those of fighting your girlfriend as a monster don't seem as tied to that phenomenon as others, but overall her point stands, I think.
It's basically the same logic as the Bechdel Test: no one or even handful of examples that fit the trope are necessarily bad on their own. The point of identifying this kind of trope is mainly just to reveal a pattern and make creators and consumers more aware of the implications of its pervasiveness.
Because of that, I think that's mainly what I'm getting out of Sarkeesian's videos so far: a better sense of the pattern. Sure, you can go to TV Tropes and look at lists or read descriptions on wikis, but it's another thing to see the actual examples of the tropes in question one after another, all grouped together. I suspect that apart from the speaking engagements and such, the amount of time spent leading up to the series premier and the time in between episodes has probably been spent playing a bunch of these games for herself so that she can more confidently gather her evidence and provide better context (like the bit where she points out a lot of games give story reasons for their tropes). Even if she only played half of the games she references in these videos, that's still a ton of content to work through considering the length of many modern games.
That said, I would also agree with those who have said that they feel we should be getting more from these videos considering the hype and financial support. Having a clearer picture of the patterns she's talking about is great, but it's one thing to point out a pattern and another thing to try to do something about it. I don't know off-hand what else she could do, but I know it can be more than this.
So ideally, I'm hoping that future videos in the series will expand upon the basic patterns identified in early episodes and make the series a more comprehensive, proactive response to all these tropes. Still, if isn't, I won't be totally put out. The high visibility of this project will at least make it a good gateway into the topic for those who wouldn't have delved into it otherwise, so at least it won't be totally pointless.
He did spend a lot of time on research, but it's pretty obvious that he's an academic without much real world perspective going on. I just want to say, "Welcome to the Internet" to him.
That tends to be the majority of criticism about Saarkesian. Like, to the point that I know multiple people with legit criticism of her that shut the fuck up because they (we?) would rather stay out of it than try to prove how we aren't in agreement with those idiots.
I thought his point was that the women were placed there by their own families rather than kidnapped by someone from outside of their family?
I really fail to see how those are substantially different scenarios. You can be kidnapped by a member of your own family. Kidnapping is by definition an unwanted transportation. Who cares if it's family or a stranger?
I thought his point was that the women were placed there by their own families rather than kidnapped by someone from outside of their family?
I really fail to see how those are substantially different scenarios. You can be kidnapped by a member of your own family. Kidnapping is by definition an unwanted transportation. Who cares if it's family or a stranger?
There's a significant symbolic difference between being taken by force outside of the accepted line of authority, and being condemned by the agents of said authority.
He did spend a lot of time on research, but it's pretty obvious that he's an academic without much real world perspective going on. I just want to say, "Welcome to the Internet" to him.
It seems more like he's a dude who remembers his college education pretty well and is pretty good at googling for journal articles. Yeah, that's way better than the average youtube video creator, but if that counts as "academic" it's a pretty low bar.
I'm not really sure what the point of his video is. It felt like what a lot of nerds do when responding to video game reviews on the internet, which is "you didn't mention factoids 1, 7, 9-beta-6, and 157, so I don't know how I can possibly trust your opinion." Like if I was criticizing the original videos I'd be like "winking at the camera is pretty lame and probably doesn't have a place in something that's nominally meant for classroom instruction. That sort of stuff has shades of the embarrassingly bad 'hey look at me I wanna be a celebrity!' That Guy With Glasses format."
Seems like if you wanted to make a video about these topics you would just make a video about these topics. However, if you wanted to piggyback off of some exhausting-ass internet drama, you would probably frame it as an expose about all the things someone got wrong, and by got wrong I mean "did not mention every single possible scenario dating back to the inception of storytelling as an art form."
I'm not really sure what the point of his video is. It felt like what a lot of nerds do when responding to video game reviews on the internet, which is "you didn't mention factoids 1, 7, 9-beta-6, and 157, so I don't know how I can possibly trust your opinion."
Yeah, the "you didn't mention..." thing (which really should be a fallacy but isn't) is one of nerds' worst downfalls. Usually what I find is that factoids 1, 7, 9-beta-6 and 157 are relevant and the person being addressed should be informed of them, but the mistake people make is that they condescend when doing so. A more propper way would be to ask them about the things -- i.e., when I went to your panel at CTcon, afterwards I asked for your take on Soda Drinker Pro, I ddin't say "oh, well you made a huge mistake by not including Soda Drinker Pro."
That kinda shit (also deep-seated anger) is why I basically don't bother arguing about feminist shit on the internet if I can help it anymore. It just comes down to stupid gotcha arguments and semantic bullshit while totally ignoring the actual drive of any arguments being made.
That kinda shit (also deep-seated anger) is why I basically don't bother arguing about feminist shit on the internet if I can help it anymore. It just comes down to stupid gotcha arguments and semantic bullshit while totally ignoring the actual drive of any arguments being made.
This is somehow different than any other argument on the internet?
Honestly I think the guy's worst offense in general is that he makes a whole crapload of videos about videogames under the guise that he is funny and interesting, and he's actually not even close to being either of those things.
That kinda shit (also deep-seated anger) is why I basically don't bother arguing about feminist shit on the internet if I can help it anymore. It just comes down to stupid gotcha arguments and semantic bullshit while totally ignoring the actual drive of any arguments being made.
See, I opted out of feminism because of it. It's too heavy a term. I'm an egalitarian now, simply because people don't assume anything of me because of it.
Comments
I mean the issue here is if there were more female main characters you'd see more dude's getting into this problem, even though I've seen enough Bromance games where you end up having to deal with your best male friend or father because he becomes evil..
But her other points are just fine, especially when they would change female protagonists to males for no really good reason (well I guess Money is a good reason....)
Her point about focusing on the larger context of things, I think, is not to say that said context should prevent use of the trope altogether. I think her meaning is that the context of pervasive use of the trope is indicative that a lot of people lean on it instinctively, and that that says something about culture's default thinking patterns around the positions of men and women in storytelling. The trope probably wouldn't be so bad if it were balanced out with more gender-flipped examples of it, or if it were more balanced out by other motivations or other tropes. Everything in moderation, yeah? As it is, this pattern exists and it does sadly parallel some of the real-life patterns of male entitlement and violence against women. I would agree that some of the more fantastical examples like those of fighting your girlfriend as a monster don't seem as tied to that phenomenon as others, but overall her point stands, I think.
It's basically the same logic as the Bechdel Test: no one or even handful of examples that fit the trope are necessarily bad on their own. The point of identifying this kind of trope is mainly just to reveal a pattern and make creators and consumers more aware of the implications of its pervasiveness.
Because of that, I think that's mainly what I'm getting out of Sarkeesian's videos so far: a better sense of the pattern. Sure, you can go to TV Tropes and look at lists or read descriptions on wikis, but it's another thing to see the actual examples of the tropes in question one after another, all grouped together. I suspect that apart from the speaking engagements and such, the amount of time spent leading up to the series premier and the time in between episodes has probably been spent playing a bunch of these games for herself so that she can more confidently gather her evidence and provide better context (like the bit where she points out a lot of games give story reasons for their tropes). Even if she only played half of the games she references in these videos, that's still a ton of content to work through considering the length of many modern games.
That said, I would also agree with those who have said that they feel we should be getting more from these videos considering the hype and financial support. Having a clearer picture of the patterns she's talking about is great, but it's one thing to point out a pattern and another thing to try to do something about it. I don't know off-hand what else she could do, but I know it can be more than this.
So ideally, I'm hoping that future videos in the series will expand upon the basic patterns identified in early episodes and make the series a more comprehensive, proactive response to all these tropes. Still, if isn't, I won't be totally put out. The high visibility of this project will at least make it a good gateway into the topic for those who wouldn't have delved into it otherwise, so at least it won't be totally pointless.
The controversy train comes rolling back.
But yes, this is kind of ridiculous that she stole the footage without asking anyone. Granted, yeah, fair use, but she is supposedly selling DVDs.
It's like... what.
That whole thing is Semantics: The Video. Like really, we're going to argue over an extremely common use of the word trope? That's your secret weapon?
I'm not really sure what the point of his video is. It felt like what a lot of nerds do when responding to video game reviews on the internet, which is "you didn't mention factoids 1, 7, 9-beta-6, and 157, so I don't know how I can possibly trust your opinion." Like if I was criticizing the original videos I'd be like "winking at the camera is pretty lame and probably doesn't have a place in something that's nominally meant for classroom instruction. That sort of stuff has shades of the embarrassingly bad 'hey look at me I wanna be a celebrity!' That Guy With Glasses format."
Seems like if you wanted to make a video about these topics you would just make a video about these topics. However, if you wanted to piggyback off of some exhausting-ass internet drama, you would probably frame it as an expose about all the things someone got wrong, and by got wrong I mean "did not mention every single possible scenario dating back to the inception of storytelling as an art form."