Tropes Vs Women 2 - Damsels In Distress Part Two : Circular Arguments Strike Back

Never in my entire registered life here on Southperry have I seen such an idiotic post. It's quite astounding really because I have absolutely given up on this site's moral compass, possibly similar to [MENTION=8755]Sardines[/MENTION]; has. Words escape me, it really does. I tried to stop from replying to this thread to pertain and keep my sanity in check but this is amazing.

This depends on how his death is written and utilised; it also depends on how often it occurs. The deaths of female characters is most frequently written in the ways she describes, and we’re often subjected to a far more brutal death that’s outside of our control. When men die, they typically have a chance to alter the conditions in which it’s occurring; it’s more about being a battle for him to overcome (and fail). His death is not often him passively standing by and being shot in the head, and he’s rarely asking for it; he makes the choice to do it (fight the battle) or does it at by his own hand with the information presented. Women who die for plot advancement are largely, as said, pawns in a story. You may have some minor development of the character, but you’re frequently seeing brutal violence against women. (And yes, there are instances where the women fight back, such as in Hitman: Absolution, but she’s immediately restrained again and left weak… Even though she’s a clone of a girl who was bred to be a top-class assassin, which is conflicting because she’s being easily locked up.)

No one enjoys brutal deaths, and in fact I have seen no proof otherwise pertaining to the fact that women face brutal deaths in comparison to men. Disregarding the video's perpetual overexaggeration to provide a basis of "proof" for the lack of a better word. I would argue that men face much more brutal deaths than women do in any video game I've ever played. I'd even take it a step further and say that I have never in my entire life of gaming for the past 16 years of my life seen what is defined as a "brutal" death for a character of female gender. I have no idea what games you're playing, let alone if you even play video games. This reeks as a case of confirmation bias or hindered eye sight.

Deadly serious, sadly. And no, the large-scale society doesn’t see it as being the fault of the individual brutalising the woman. Think of all the rape cases recently, such as Steubenville. The girl was passed out drunk and boys took advantage of her, filming it; the people supporting these boys blamed her. It was her fault because she was drunk, it was her fault because she was there, it was her fault because she was wearing skimpy clothes, she’s a slut, she’s a whore, she asked for it. These things were all said. While there may be a large population of people who understand that, regardless of scenario and short of saying “Please have sex with me,” there is a ridiculously large section of society that views it as being the woman’s fault because of one of those (or other) reasons. So, no, she’s not kidding; she’s entirely serious, and this is still a thought process that people have.

God damn legal grey area that is completely irrelevant to the discussion of video games. There is no valid consensus whether or not you're able to fully give consent when you're drunk and the case you're referring to is a bad example anyway. Did you forget the amount of outrage that case received due to what people thought CNN was giving "sympathetic" view of the scene due to their previous history involving sports? There are pomegranatety people everywhere in the world and it's a god damn fact of life. People will always place blame on other people disregarding gender issues completely, which shouldn't even be brought up to begin with.

(Rape, by the way, is defined as violence against women.)

You must be insane. Rape is not defined as "violence against women". Rape can happen to other genders too. Rape is well defined.

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or with a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent.

I think we had to mention this in the other thread, but this is a form of distraction. You’re distracting from the message at hand (how the damsel trope is tied into presenting violence against women). She’s not addressing general violence at this point; she’s addressing the violence against a specified group of people. It would be too much to talk about the entire aspect of violence, which is already something that is being discussed; we see it all the time, so she doesn’t need to address it specifically. Here’s another way to think of it: If you’re writing a paper about Hitler’s rise to power affecting the European landscape, you’re not going to include how Mussolini rose to power in Italy; their roles may’ve been related to the landscape of WWII in Europe, but the two topics are separate. In this instance, she’s detailing violence against women; violence is a problem overall, but she’s focusing on a specific sub-group. Asking for more is distracting from the topic at hand. This technique, by the way, is often used to discredit the topic being talked about; it’s saying that it’s “not important enough” to address. Since she addresses it at least once (which is good -- it's also something she almost always does when she talks about violence against women; she also addresses it in other videos regarding gender stereotyping), she doesn’t need to address it at this point in time. (It's not saying all violence is unimportant, by the way.)

The damsel trope is stereotypical however tying it in with violence is superfluous and overexagggerated as I mentioned above. There is much much more violence against men in video games than women yet no one bats an eye because guess what, video games are a form of entertainment value that you can't experience in real life. You can't go around killing people in real life but you can do so in game for the semi-fun value of it. There is nothing demented about it, it doesn't cause an increase of violence or anything. It's just there for what it is at face value: entertainment. I'm going to disregard your mentioning of Godwin's Law because I don't feel like mentioning how silly it is to bring up Hitler to prove a "point" on an internet discussion.

But since you want a bigger breakdown of the games people play, I found this study; I think the title is somewhat misleading, but I'm still skimming the rest of the information. The biggest thing I find is that male gamers tend to prefer violent video games over non-violent; this statistic, when utilised by the gaming industry, could express the amount of video games being developed with that in mind (as women are split in preference, men skew toward one side). But perhaps it could be that it's the a) type of violence of the fact that b) some violence is negligible and irrelevant (gratuitous); this could put women off certain areas of gaming and cause them to lean toward another genre where it is less likely to occur. So, again, just having the statistics doesn't do much. We have the statistics available, but the availability of video games that might interest both parties is severely lacking. This potentially can cause issues with the data.

You seriously didn't even read what the study was even trying to get to. I'm a scientist and I have I suppose "experience" in reading scientific papers and studies, all this is proving is that most women are in fact "casual" players just like Dusk says they are. I'll take a wild guess and say that yes, most of the "hardcore" or "extreme" gamers as the study shows are heterosexual males which is what he is saying also, albeit irrelevant.

And because I think people need more of a view of the actual treatment of women in the gaming industry, GBITK’s Isolated Incidents is just the tip of the iceberg. They need to finish compiling, but it’s insanity to read. I can't remember if I linked it last time, so there it is.

Whoa. You're telling me pomegranatety people exist in the world? Well I'll be damned. The revelation this Isolated Incidents page has given me is enlightening for sure, if it would even load in the first place.

I'm from the United States, smart one. I live in Australia. I never said rape only occurs to women, I said it was violence against women (when used against women, so maybe I should've clarified that further so you couldn't try to use it against me). Thanks for nitpicking while not having your facts straight, though.

But, if you read legislation history, it wasn't until recently that laws included men in rape cases. According to law, men could not be raped. As a result, rape was typically defined (particularly among society but definitely in law) as only occurring to women. So perhaps you might want to do some research of your own regarding the history of legislation against rape before you try to unnecessarily correct me regarding something I didn't really say.

Your location is irrelevant because the definition of rape is worldwide and your original definition is wrong, plain and simple. In fact it was so astoundingly dumb that I couldn't believe anyone would even say that, and now I see you're even defending it. What you are referring to men not being included in rape cases is older than both of our ages combined and multiplied, taking place in the 17th century or even before. Spousal rape wasn't even a thing back and times have changed a lot since then. So yes, the law has considered the fact that males can be raped for a very very long time. In fact, people have dropped the term "rape" completely and just use the term sexual assault. So I believe it is you who should learn their facts straight because all this mindless pomegranateposting bugs me. Oh and while we're on the topic of rape, did you know men who are raped still have to pay for child support?

I'm done replying as of this post because it has made me a bit too angry.