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

I always felt that her first video should have started with Pitbull playing in the background.



[video=youtube;CXwY5HxYC3k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXwY5HxYC3k[/video]

I liked this video better, but I feel that she skates around the issue with extremely excessive violence in video games in general. I know she touched on it, but she drew a different conclusion than I did. The fact is that many video games were not created with any intention of telling an intricate story, with most of the intention being focused instead on providing the player with a gameplay experience that primarily focuses on inflicting tons of violence upon their enemies. I mean, off the top of my head I can name five games that came out this year that are just 10-15 hour long rampages when you try to apply any real life context to them. Video games are mostly marketed towards men and there may well be an oversaturation of the damsel in distress trope and violence towards women, but I feel that that any issue with sexism or misogyny is overstated and the phenomenon is largely a product of what games currently are.

That said I bought Dear Esther with the Humble Bundle and I do look forward to playing it.

So she's part of his bionic arm? so what? that's a good plot twist. doesn't really say anything about the feminist issue.

I thought it was a referencing to wanking. :O

The video was sick ass! I enjoyed it! Really looking forward to part 3!

Yet another great video, with the last few minutes especially doing a great job at bringing everything together and explaining why it's such a problem. You're not ignorant, you're just more intelligent and conscientious than most gamers. It's important to remember, when discussing topics like these, that the average person representing the majority is the one affected by such narratives to the effects described. For example, nearly every person playing a game with rampant gun violence will not pick up an assault rifle and shoot up a crowd, but only a very small percentage remains completely pacifistic. In other words, it's the heightening of aggressive feelings/thoughts/moods during and immediately after the playing of such games that afflicts the vast majority of gamers - those to whom Anita is speaking. The success of these games is rooted in their ability to trigger an emotional response in their players, and though not every person will up and commit acts of gun violence or violence/abuse against women, the games' incessant repetitions of the same dehumanizing actions against women alters the psychology of audiences to view the gender with less regard. Which Anita said beautifully from 20:37 - 21:30, summarizing the point with: "So when developers exploit sensationalized images of brutalized, mutilated, and victimized women over and over and over again, it tends to reinforce the dominant gender paradigm which casts men as aggressive and commanding, and frames women as subordinate and dependent." Therefore, sure, you may have guys who "appreciate women more," but are they appreciating them more as complex, dynamic human beings, or symbols/figures of sexual love and possession ("she's MY girl!")? And even if the former is the case, are these men truly appreciate of the gender as a whole? Or do they continue to perpetuate the same institutional sexism they claim to denounce through the usage of women as the punchline for cheap jokes and other "seemingly harmless" perspectives of comedy and discourse?

Dan: "Therefore, sure, you may have guys who 'appreciate women more,' but are they appreciating them more as complex, dynamic human beings, or symbols/figures of sexual love and possession (she's MY girl!')? And even if the former is the case, are these men truly appreciate of the gender as a whole? Or do they continue to perpetuate the same institutional sexism they claim to denounce through the usage of women as the punchline for cheap jokes and other 'seemingly harmless' perspectives of comedy and discourse?"

Response: Your conclusion is that women shouldn't be the punchline of cheap jokes, but how do you feel about expensive ones? Nor should they be the target of harmful comedy or discourse, but what about safety padded ones? If women are complex, dynamic human beings then why does your post conclude with the sentiment that truly 'respecting' them is basically treating them like porcelain or fine glass. If women were truly the complicated and pro-fitness human beings that you make them out to be, then why can't they handle a little slander when they've likely been exposed to racial criticism if they are niggers, papayas, or chinks. I can't even take this line seriously when you ask if men can, 'truly appreciate of the gender as a whole.' It is absurd to even bring a question that seems to imply that men fail to appreciate an entirety of a gender, when such a concept is purely theoretically and not at all realistic. Shame on us, the united male geist of the planet Earth for failing to properly respect that which is of the female of this planet. You can't truly appreciate something that doesn't exist. Nor can you try to hold double standards for something when you demand equality on all fronts.

Dan: "... the average person representing the majority is the one affected by such narratives to the effects described. For example, nearly every person playing a game with rampant gun violence will not pick up an assault rifle and shoot up a crowd, but only a very small percentage remains completely pacifistic. In other words, it's the heightening of aggressive feelings/thoughts/moods during and immediately after the playing of such games that afflicts the vast majority of gamers - those to whom Anita is speaking. The success of these games is rooted in their ability to trigger an emotional response in their players, and though not every person will up and commit acts of gun violence or violence/abuse against women, the games' incessant repetitions of the same dehumanizing actions against women alters the psychology of audiences to view the gender with less regard.

Response: Am I the only person that started reading this from the middle of the first sentence, got to the end, tried to re-read and give Dan the benefit of the doubt and then said, 'That still doesn't make sense no matter how many times I interpret that f'ing quote.' If the average person, who being the 'average' person that he is tends to be an ideal person to presume to be the 'majority' (I actually think someone completely average is quite rare) is influenced by video games (how many people can consent to conscientiously being subconsciously influenced by video games?), then why is it that Dan insists that a consequence of a 'majority' of 'average' persons playing a violent game only results in a 'very small percentage' being subconsciously influenced to remain pacifistic? SOMEONE HASN'T GOTTEN ALL THEIR POINTS STRAIGHTENED OUT YET. Someone's inner Doctor Phil is giving them Doctor Jekyll Consistency Disorder (DJCD).

Digressing from the contradiction, let's look at this conclusion, "the games' incessant repetitions of the same dehumanizing actions against women alters the psychology of audiences to view the gender with less regard." I don't know man. Do you know why games involve crazy things that you look at and say, 'Wow that s*** is messed up.' Maybe it's because... no matter how many times we see something wrong, we still recognize that it's wrong and still have an emotional reaction to it being wrong. Maybe the vast majority of us that actually exist realize that the abuse presented in a game, is being presented in a game and are cognizant that reality and fantasy aren't of the same realm. Maybe if it weren't for gender biased video games, someone would have called the cops when Katy Genovese was murdered instead of calling Nintendo Hot Line (come on guys you don't need me to explain this one). The only merit that this point holds is that we're subconsciously or passively influenced by the gender bias in video games and we somehow allow this subconscious chauvinism to materialize in our real lives. Video game Freud Disease isn't the real threat that produces chauvinism and female discrimination. And simplifying that the actualization of such biases produce an analogous attitude in the minds of children in some 'complex, subtle, metamorphical, fantasmical, imaginerical, complexical, neurosciencial, oh I guess I'm bull****ing and saying that there is no hard core scientific double-blind study for what I'm saying cause I have an MA and am now taking kick starter money to pay off tuition-ical' manner is nothing but paradoxical.

Point: What Anita does is 'cool' in the sense that you watch your little cousin or nephew cover himself in paint and then roll himself unto a white backboard canvas and then proudly call it art. In a similar manner, it is 'neat' that Anita canvases various popular video games with 'shock factors.' However her mistake is that she actually believes that the A-matter is actually in the games themselves. It doesn't take a scientist or even someone with an MA to figure out that games aren't the problem. They never were or never are. Look at our society well before video games and we see how ignorance of equality led to a legitimate mistreatment of other people and races. Chauvinist attitudes aren't started because of subliminal video game programming. Did Ted Bundy have the balls to do what he did after playing repeated levels of PONG? Do you think OJ cut up his own ex-wife & her friend and then had the gal to publish a book entitled, 'If I Did It' because he was a hardcore gamer who made a run through 'Anita's featured video game listing' during off-season. Let's be real here. And by real, let's not b.s. ourselves into taking a journey through a youtube playthrough of shocking video game moments of female abuse to be equivalent to be treated as some social documentary of the human race. To do so would be a disgrace to not only the women the video supposedly advocates for (eye roll every ten seconds of video), but to the common sense we all possess.

The problem is that there are these stereotypes in society, and these plot devices don't do anything but help perpetuate them. The idea of a woman as a prize (I was so nice to her and she just friendzoned me, ugh!) is something that I find abhorrent and the less of it the better.

I also don't blame her for disabling youtube comments; I think throwing out the proverbial baby of constructive criticism is worth tossing out with the thousands of misogynistic and hateful comments.

I liked this video better, but I feel that she skates around the issue with extremely excessive violence in video games in general. I know she touched on it, but she drew a different conclusion than I did. The fact is that many video games were not created with any intention of telling an intricate story, with most of the intention being focused instead on providing the player with a gameplay experience that primarily focuses on inflicting tons of violence upon their enemies. I mean, off the top of my head I can name five games that came out this year that are just 10-15 hour long rampages when you try to apply any real life context to them. Video games are mostly marketed towards men and there may well be an oversaturation of the damsel in distress trope and violence towards women, but I feel that that any issue with sexism or misogyny is overstated and the phenomenon is largely a product of what games currently are.

The point is that it's irrelevant. The mere inclusion of the tropes in a video game is enough to warrant outrage, because again, even if they're only the main focus of the narrative, but not the game, they still exist as part of the repeated psychological onslaught of media experiences that together form the modern version of the institution of sexism. And to top it all off, they're attached to gameplay scenes and elements that seek to, at their very root, capture the mind of the player by evoking a powerful emotional response of the primitive variety, appealing to sex and lust, flight or fight responses, and survival of the fittest domination and command.

If the stories are pointless and take the far backseat to the excessive violence of the gameplay, then why bother resorting to damsel tropes at all? Just write a pomegranatety narrative that doesn't dehumanize any character, making all flat, two-dimensional shadows. It's not that difficult if that's really what's important in a game.

The point is that it's irrelevant. The mere inclusion of the tropes in a video game is enough to warrant outrage, because again, even if they're only the main focus of the narrative, but not the game, they still exist as part of the repeated psychological onslaught of media experiences that together form the modern version of the institution of sexism. And to top it all off, they're attached to gameplay scenes and elements that seek to, at their very root, capture the mind of the player by evoking a powerful emotional response of the primitive variety, appealing to sex and lust, flight or fight responses, and survival of the fittest domination and command. If the stories are pointless and take the far backseat to the excessive violence of the gameplay, then why bother resorting to damsel tropes at all? Just write a pomegranatety narrative that doesn't dehumanize any character, making all flat, two-dimensional shadows. It's not that difficult if that's really what's important in a game.

Is there anyone reading what I'm reading?

The point is that it's irrelevant. The mere inclusion of the tropes in a video game is enough to warrant outrage, because again, even if they're only the main focus of the narrative, but not the game, they still exist as part of the repeated psychological onslaught of media experiences that together form the modern version of the institution of sexism. And to top it all off, they're attached to gameplay scenes and elements that seek to, at their very root, capture the mind of the player by evoking a powerful emotional response of the primitive variety, appealing to sex and lust, flight or fight responses, and survival of the fittest domination and command.

If the stories are pointless and take the far backseat to the excessive violence of the gameplay, then why bother resorting to damsel tropes at all? Just write a pomegranatety narrative that doesn't dehumanize any character, making all flat, two-dimensional shadows. It's not that difficult if that's really what's important in a game.

I think you're missing the point of a trope. It's a familiar and appealing story pattern that's easy to create variations on. As usual the only people getting outraged are the progressives that take everything too seriously.

Is there anyone reading what I'm reading?

It's kinda long but yes.

I think you're missing the point of a trope. It's a familiar and appealing story pattern that's easy to create variations on. As usual the only people getting outraged are the progressives that take everything too seriously.



It's kinda long but yes.

The problem is that you see the tropes of women being used as token storytelling tools, some of which involve brutalizing women, and say that that's appealing. Why the pineapple is that appealing?! What is god damn appealing about seeing a defenseless woman get tortured?

These tropes aren't going to make gamers of any intelligence level change their perception of women because this is already how society thinks of women. A lot of men going out to bars think that getting a woman in bed so they can get laid is the ultimate prize. A lot of people on the internet think that because they are nice to a girl, they deserve the girl. Video game tropes aren't building the subconscious idea that women are a prize, possession or a tool because that's already there.

You don't necessarily have to be outraged over these things. As an avid gamer, I have noticed these tropes in videogames but they don't make me angry.

An example of this is Lord of the Rings: The Third Age. An absolutely amazing game, with awesome characters. One of the characters is Morwen, a tough-no nonsense empowered girl with dual axes and a berserker-like gameplay, she was basically a female version of Gimli. She manages to be one of the strongest characters in the game, both in gameplay and storyline, but of course, she isn't the main character, a guy is. And obviously when there is a girl and a guy in a video game there HAS to be romance.
So this guy comes along, breaks down her rough outer shell and they fall in love (of course). and then right at the end of the game, oh, what is this twist? she forgets all of her battle training and gets stabbed from behind, with the line of "I'm going to take away something you love" thrown in complete with him holding her limp body and screaming at the sky "WHY" before going on a rampage and killing all the ringwraiths.

(Also of note is that the only other female character in the game is ALSO a love interest and doesn't really do much apart from that and being elven)

So yeah, it's lazy storytelling and it makes it hard for writers to create female characters without disempowering them or empowering them too much and making them seem like a "pro-girl power" Buffy/Firefly deal

It's not hard to see how such thinking could influence society as a whole, clearly there is an issue of people already thinking like that if female characters are written in such a way, and all it does is perpetuate stereotypes and make them common for a new generation.

To be honest, most of the games she used as an example were pretty unknown to me. I'm a pretty casual game so I think that says something. It's ironic because I see people criticize one piece because never do girls get hurt. Not that anyone is wanting them all to suddenly die, but the entire crew get's beaten and battered while they remain virtually unscathed.

Turning off the comments is weak, and as an individual she doesn't have enough confidence in her opinion. She has completely exaggerated her "omg they were so offensive", every video on the internet that has some form of opinion deals with those comments, and she victimizes herself. She herself perpetuates the stereotype, then tries to make a deal about it. Now she has a bunch of people who dislike her because she's a drama queen. Hell I have some lame ass from 3 years ago send me anonymous pm's how my family should be brutalized because I thought his dark knight video sucked and gave him proper criticism.

She's a coward and just wants to be praised by biased people, you can't learn both sides of the argument, nor present one if you entirely ignore it.

[video=youtube;BfD8L1euBuk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfD8L1euBuk[/video]

I couldn't find the actual ending on YouTube without the full ending but that's essentially the same class of people I classify her in currently.

The problem is that you see the tropes of women being used as token storytelling tools, some of which involve brutalizing women, and say that that's appealing. Why the pineapple is that appealing?! What is god damn appealing about seeing a defenseless woman get tortured?

These tropes aren't going to make gamers of any intelligence level change their perception of women because this is already how society thinks of women. A lot of men going out to bars think that getting a woman in bed so they can get laid is the ultimate prize. A lot of people on the internet think that because they are nice to a girl, they deserve the girl. Video game tropes aren't building the subconscious idea that women are a prize, possession or a tool because that's already there.

I thought it was fairly obvious that we were talking about the "friend/relative/SO getting kidnapped/murdered and guy going out to seek revenge" trope and not the actual brutalizing of women.

And no, I really don't agree that the trope proliferates the idea that women are possessions. You see what you want to see. The example from her video where the bad guy goes "Now, I take from you" and shoots the girlfriend doesn't imply that the girlfriend is his possession. How would it be any different if it was his brother?

The problem is that you see the tropes of women being used as token storytelling tools, some of which involve brutalizing women, and say that that's appealing. Why the pineapple is that appealing?! What is god damn appealing about seeing a defenseless woman get tortured?

These tropes aren't going to make gamers of any intelligence level change their perception of women because this is already how society thinks of women. A lot of men going out to bars think that getting a woman in bed so they can get laid is the ultimate prize. A lot of people on the internet think that because they are nice to a girl, they deserve the girl. Video game tropes aren't building the subconscious idea that women are a prize, possession or a tool because that's already there.

This, 100%. These tropes in video games aren't single-handedly creating a dominant male power structure in society that institutionalizes sexism, but contribute to it by perpetuating . In essence this is also the response to your long-winded essay, Harrison (because I'm pretty sure that's who you are), as sure, Ted Bundy, O.J. Simpson, etc. didn't directly commit violence against women due to playing video games (I mean hello Anita even mentions this by saying: "We typically don't have a monkey-see, monkey-do cause and effect relationship with the media we consume."), but that doesn't mean the incessant use of these tropes doesn't subtly contribute to a great societal view of women as . That kind of assumption, my friend, is a logical fallacy - as you should know.

Also Harrison, calm your tits about people reading your lengthy rhetoric. I didn't address it in my post above because you hadn't finished writing it by the time I logged off the site. So relax, bro.

So yeah, it's lazy storytelling and it makes it hard for writers to create female characters without disempowering them or empowering them too much and making them seem like a "pro-girl power" Buffy/Firefly deal.

That's the frustration with this point. Because women as a gender as so consistently typecast into certain flat roles/tropes in narratives, our cultural conscious can't view actually dynamic, complex female characters as a fictional representation of a normal reality, but as, like Razmos said, someone "pro-girl power." Even then they lose their identity as an individual and are written off as an attempt to push a feminist agenda, or some other nonsense.

These issues are, of course, not limited solely to women, but exist with any identity as tropes and stereotypes serve to perpetuate institutionalized bigotry. For example, Asian-American actresses at the turn of the 20th century were almost always cast in one of two "roles": (a) the damsel in distress (oh look it's here too), or (b) the villainous vixen. Even today Asian artists find popularity by resorting to playing into American racial stereotypes (see: PSY, whose success in Western markets can be linked to his embodiment of the goofy/clownish Asian man trope, also seen in the likes of Ken Jeong, William Hung, and others). And though I love the show, I recognize the glaring issues with Will & Grace as its success was due to its exploitation of extremely narrow gay stereotypes in the name of comedy.

The bottom line is that, yes, bigotry against human identities was born and raised long before the advent of its usage in popular media. However, it's the continued use of such tropes and whatnot that keeps these bigoted institutions alive today. If we want to seriously (tying you in here [MENTION=1130]Dusk[/MENTION]) end racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., we must cease lazily defaulting to these inappropriate methods of representation, put our thinking caps on, and develop fictional characters actually evocative of the real people they're trying to emulate.

How would it be any different if it was his brother?

Because there's no entrenched precedent for that like there is for possession-based sexism against women. It's the same reason why black face is incredibly racist: the method was developed as a means to dehumanize black people for the sake of entertainment, creating a stereotyped caricature of the race that played a significant role in cementing and proliferating racist images. In other words, the utilization of damsel and distress tropes, black face, and other designs is an issue because they continue a damaging, bigoted tradition alluded to by their very existence.

Harrisonized

Lmao. Really. I give up on this site. The fact that you're over emphasizing video games to have any contributions to society or discrimination or social lowering is the point that you lose focus on the real issues that create complexities of misogyny and female abuse within individuals. You assume that video game plot devices do nothing but lower the status quo for pro-equality social status when there is nothing to substantiate that there is a directly proportional mental effect. You underwrite the effect of such video games saying that it leads to 'tolerance' and pacifisity. But you are still arguing that there is a directly proportional relationship between a person viewing your presumption of 'bad' media content which consequently results in some theoretical 'bad' outlook for society. There is no way to substantiate such an assumption, nor is there a way to make a strong statement about the subconscious, because it is the subconscious. The fact that we have feminism is illustrative of how far we've come in terms of gender roles and rights since the 1950s which did a lot more to suppress women's rights than video games ever did. And literature like the Feminine Mystique came a long way in opening up the idea alone that has allowed women in our present society to stand on equal footing. Insinuating if video games debase society is probably true in the sense that video games are rudimentary and juvenile pieces of entertainment that often fall short of their literary companions or take up free time that could be spent on academic research/focus. But when you cite that they have an influence on the human psyche and that this is a majority occurrence, you have a poor understanding of human society if you think that people neglect the boundary between fiction and reality. In addition, pointing at video games for being the A-matter of media problems is the last place where focus should be given. Why isn't there focus on books like 50-Shades of Grey, modern pop songs like the Pit Bull Song I previously posted, or nearly every other form of entertainment media that introduces females as desirable objects of romantic interest? What is important is looking at context and whether the underlying message of video games is female subjugation. Presuming that video games are the problem is ignorance. If you think that our current status quo for entertainment is the issue, then you're tackling a historical issue of entertainment development marketing and revenue. Video games are a product of that mind set, not the source material.

I thought it was fairly obvious that we were talking about the "friend/relative/SO getting kidnapped/murdered and guy going out to seek revenge" trope and not the actual brutalizing of women.

And no, I really don't agree that the trope proliferates the idea that women are possessions. You see what you want to see. The example from her video where the bad guy goes "Now, I take from you" and shoots the girlfriend doesn't imply that the girlfriend is his possession. How would it be any different if it was his brother?

But that's the problem - it's almost never a brother or a husband that gets killed or kidnapped. It's never the wife who has to avenge the death of her son and husband. The woman is almost always delegated to be the motivator and the man the one to take action. As Anita said in her video, the woman is often just in the game as the motivator for the man to go on his quest. So let's assume that using that tired trope is alright, and it's fine to have a person die to get the game moving. So why is it always a wife, girlfriend or daughter? Why not a mother? Or a father? Or a brother? Or a husband? Or a son? Or a best friend? It's not that they use death as an easy motivator that I don't like, it's that they always use the death of a woman.

To be honest, most of the games she used as an example were pretty unknown to me. I'm a pretty casual game so I think that says something. It's ironic because I see people criticize one piece because never do girls get hurt. Not that anyone is wanting them all to suddenly die, but the entire crew get's beaten and battered while they remain virtually unscathed.

Turning off the comments is weak, and as an individual she doesn't have enough confidence in her opinion. She has completely exaggerated her "omg they were so offensive", every video on the internet that has some form of opinion deals with those comments, and she victimizes herself. She herself perpetuates the stereotype, then tries to make a deal about it. Now she has a bunch of people who dislike her because she's a drama queen. Hell I have some lame ass from 3 years ago send me anonymous pm's how my family should be brutalized because I thought his dark knight video sucked and gave him proper criticism.

She's a coward and just wants to be praised by biased people, you can't learn both sides of the argument, nor present one if you entirely ignore it.

Why is it ironic that people complain women in One Piece don't get hurt? Oda goes to the opposite extreme and often treats his women characters like princesses that can't be harmed. If there's anything that I would complain about in One Piece it's that the women are almost always treated as goddesses. I want woman characters to be portrayed as the same way man characters are - human.

And are we just forgetting that when she did her kickstarter people were threatening her with rape? That there was an entire insurgence of people that were absolutely vicious in their comments? That even now people flag her video to get it taken down? She didn't disable commentary because she doesn't want feedback, she disabled comments because there's an entire vicious misogynistic legion of turdlords that have her marked as public enemy number one. When was the last time you saw legitimate constructive criticism on youtube comments? Especially one that challenges social views? You want to argue her points? Then just contact her! She has a twitter right here!

I'd also like to see some specific evidence wherein she "perpetuates the stereotypes" or I'll just presume you're talking out of your ass.

This is a non-existent problem with melodramatic analysis' whose supposed "consequences" are nothing but fictional fallacies and don't exist nor can be solved.

I'd also like to see some specific evidence wherein she "perpetuates the stereotypes" or I'll just presume you're talking out of your ass.

Specific evidence? What, of her reasoning of why she won't allow people besides her friends on twitter to give feed back of her half assed video's? Or the fact she has publicly tried to milk sympathy out of people from "horrid" comments. Melodramatic, just like this entire issue.

Why is it ironic that people complain women in One Piece don't get hurt? Oda goes to the opposite extreme and often treats his women characters like princesses that can't be harmed. If there's anything that I would complain about in One Piece it's that the women are almost always treated as goddesses. I want woman characters to be portrayed as the same way man characters are - human.

Yeah goddess', please, I can name 8 instances off the top of my head that completely contradict that. Really going to try to start a one piece debate with me? Sit down.

And are we just forgetting that when she did her kickstarter people were threatening her with rape?

OH JEEZE I've NEVER seen that be- Oh wait, I've been threatened with rape on maplestory for f`uck sake. Get the f`uck out. They are just comments, and she disabled the ratings, which antagonizes the public more so, you know why? Because she's trying to silence what the GENERAL public feels about her message. That isn't trolling, bigotry, or anything of the sort, it's proof that it's utter bull sh`it. You think it's just males attacking her? You think she's the only one? For christ sake jenna marbles, on public television was completely attacked.

Find me a credible source that took the same action as she did, because the only one's I can think of, are religious organizations spouting non-sense or homosexual haters, who can fall in the same category. HINT: you won't.

And yeah, let me go on her twitter full of her "Yes mam's" just to get flamed off the planet for having a credible opinion. That's the thing, feedback is represented by neutral parties who point out clear fallacies which the public agrees with on either side. If you got into a church and say god doesn't exist because science, you're going to be beaten and thrown out, even though science does question the existance of god.

Considering the women has posted clearly feminist comments, I'm going to just say she isn't open minded to said criticism unless it inflates her ego.

Sit down.

But that's the problem - it's almost never a brother or a husband that gets killed or kidnapped. It's never the wife who has to avenge the death of her son and husband. The woman is almost always delegated to be the motivator and the man the one to take action. As Anita said in her video, the woman is often just in the game as the motivator for the man to go on his quest. So let's assume that using that tired trope is alright, and it's fine to have a person die to get the game moving. So why is it always a wife, girlfriend or daughter? Why not a mother? Or a father? Or a brother? Or a husband? Or a son? Or a best friend? It's not that they use death as an easy motivator that I don't like, it's that they always use the death of a woman.

Because most gamers are heterosexual men?

I don't know about you guys, but the domestic violence in video games is amazingly high.

Just look at this video as proof:

[video=youtube;wSfZtmeyaFw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSfZtmeyaFw[/video]


If that isn't domestic violence then I don't know what is.

This is a non-existent problem with melodramatic analysis' whose supposed "consequences" are nothing but fictional fallacies and don't exist nor can be solved.

[/COLOR]

Specific evidence? What, of her reasoning of why she won't allow people besides her friends on twitter to give feed back of her half assed video's? Or the fact she has publicly tried to milk sympathy out of people from "horrid" comments. Melodramatic, just like this entire issue.

Yeah goddess', please, I can name 8 instances off the top of my head that completely contradict that. Really going to try to start a one piece debate with me? Sit down.

OH JEEZE I've NEVER seen that be- Oh wait, I've been threatened with rape on maplestory for f`uck sake. Get the f`uck out. They are just comments, and she disabled the ratings, which antagonizes the public more so, you know why? Because she's trying to silence what the GENERAL public feels about her message. That isn't trolling, bigotry, or anything of the sort, it's proof that it's utter bull sh`it. You think it's just males attacking her? You think she's the only one? For christ sake jenna marbles, on public television was completely attacked.

Find me a credible source that took the same action as she did, because the only one's I can think of, are religious organizations spouting non-sense or homosexual haters, who can fall in the same category. HINT: you won't.

And yeah, let me go on her twitter full of her "Yes mam's" just to get flamed off the planet for having a credible opinion. That's the thing, feedback is represented by neutral parties who point out clear fallacies which the public agrees with on either side. If you got into a church and say god doesn't exist because science, you're going to be beaten and thrown out, even though science does question the existance of god.

Considering the women has posted clearly feminist comments, I'm going to just say she isn't open minded to said criticism unless it inflates her ego.

Sit down.

I love how you argue that because she has an opinion her opinion isn't valid. And how you won't try to talk to her because you presume she won't listen. You can't be proven wrong if you don't try, I suppose.

Personally, I haven't been too wrapped up in this series. Honestly, she might be a terrible person! Really! But I don't think likening her to homophobic groups because she doesn't like youtube comments is fair. And does how she act actually devalidate the points she makes in the video? Is what she says wrong because she's an egomaniac? Because if you think that there's not an issue with women in video games and the games industry in general boy have I got something for you.