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

So heterosexual men do not have relationships with their sons, fathers, brothers, and friends that merit strong emotional reactions to their dis-empowerment or death?

Really all I could say here is "Hamlet"

We were talking about the statistics. Those situations do exist in games.

It's not that big of a difference. D:Looking through the different years, it's interesting to note that in 2006, around 38% of players were female. Just looked at the Canadian site as well for kicks. 2011 shows 38% of players being female and 2012 shows 46%.

I want to see more details of that study. I'm sure that statistic is offset by family entertainment and casual games, which I don't think really apply to this discussion.

I’m going to address some of the questions I saw as I skimmed through and points I saw that incited the most response from me. I used Word, so that's why there are no quotes and only mentions; I'm lazy, deal with it.

1. If a man dies for plot advancement, is it also bad?
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.)

2. [MENTION=922]Alloy[/MENTION]; “And about people being convinced about women being the cause of genre violence... Is she serious?”
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. (Rape, by the way, is defined as violence against women.)

3. [MENTION=5228]Razmos[/MENTION]; “that was obviously scripted, I don't even understand what the point she was trying to make there was. 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 think the facepalm is largely due to the whole obvious masturbation joke and that he’s quite literally married to his arm. I think the point she was trying to make is that it is a poorly constructed masturbation joke that puts his “wife” in a place of use for sexual pleasure. (Though, looking at his arm, I wouldn’t want that coming near me at all.) Not something I would’ve included had I presented this, but that’s another way to look at it.

4. [MENTION=1130]Dusk[/MENTION]; “I liked this video better, but I feel that she skates around the issue with extremely excessive violence in video games in general.”
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.)

5. [MENTION=1130]Dusk[/MENTION]; “Because most gamers are heterosexual men?”
Only on a technicality, though demographics of gaming don’t mention sexuality (so that’s a moot point). So just based on a gender line? Try 47% of gamers are female. And we’re not all playing “casual” games or “family entertainment.” Some of us don’t have children to play games with, and we’re not being forced to do it by our male counterparts; some of us play a larger variety of video games than our more counterparts, to be precise. So stop trying to shoebox us all into some category where you think we belong; we’re just as diverse as men when it comes to our tastes in entertainment. This website, of all things, should be more understanding of that.

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.

6. [MENTION=4235]KhainiWest[/MENTION]; Regarding turning off comments, ratings/statistics, and “Instead we have hundreds of response video's of which case she ignores, along with any form of communication.”
It’s not weak to put something online and have your face associated with it. We know who she is and what her name is; we know quite a lot of information about her. It’s not weak because you have other methods of contacting her (blog posts, written articles, Tumblr, Twitter and her website, for example) if you want to submit your feedback to her. It would be seen as weaker if she posted it anonymously, with no telling signs of who she is. And since she was spam-flagged, ratings are pointless; the same exact thing would happen. Also, unless your place of residence is inside of Anita’s head, you cannot talk about what she does and does not ignore because you have absolutely no clue what she reads or watches outside of the presented material. Even if she doesn’t mention it or respond to it (because a lot of it is goading her), she may see it and take into consideration the thoughts presented. It's a logical fallacy to assume information one cannot possibly have.


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.

6. @KhainiWest; Regarding turning off comments, ratings/statistics, and “Instead we have hundreds of response video's of which case she ignores, along with any form of communication.”
It’s not weak to put something online and have your face associated with it. We know who she is and what her name is; we know quite a lot of information about her. It’s not weak because you have other methods of contacting her (blog posts, written articles, Tumblr, Twitter and her website, for example) if you want to submit your feedback to her. It would be weak if she posted it anonymously, with no telling signs of who she is. And since she was spam-flagged, ratings are pointless; the same exact thing would happen. Also, unless your place of residence is inside of Anita’s head, you cannot talk about what she does and does not ignore because you have absolutely no clue what she reads or watches outside of the presented material. Even if she doesn’t mention it or respond to it (because a lot of it is goading her), she may see it and take into consideration the thoughts presented. It's a logical fallacy to assume information one cannot possibly have.


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.

I'd give you more credit if you actually watched the video or seen people trying to respond to her, intellectually mind you, only to be berated by feminist nazi's. Although, she's on the border of being one during those initial twitter comments. The point of putting up these video's were clearly for discussion, she says so in her own goddamn video's, yet silences any communication based on the threat of being harassed. If she want's discussion, she should allow discussion, not cry like a little b`itch over "tits or get the pineapple out". It's melodramatic, and ironic as f`uck to be honest. If she feels confident enough to project her idea's, then she should have confidence to see the feedback, which she has torn away.

It's entirely retarded to try to have a discussion with her because if isn't positive reinforcement, it's disregarded, wasted effort. Now we just have an army of haters who are more passionate about spiting her than discussing with her because they can't vent their frustrations. And you're absolutely right, they already have all the information they possibly could get on this girl. So to say this is a "safe" measure of protection is idiotic. She's scared to see the true opinion of her work, which is not 150 thousand dollars+ worth of research, let alone a convincing piece.

So based on her reaction of the comments as victimizing herself, I can judge her character, which is, delicate, much like the female characters she criticizes. Seriously, if I was in her position, I would have left all communication open, I want to see how the general public reflects on my opinion. If youtube is really that useless she shouldn't have reflected her "educated" opinion there.

By the way, I know you're from a different country, but for the life of me, the dictionary, in all languages from shitty half assed translations, does not refer to rape as a gender specific action. If it is, it's moronic as men, although unlikely, can be forced too.

I'd give you more credit if you actually watched the video or seen people trying to respond to her, intellectually mind you, only to be berated by feminist nazi's.

This makes no sense because you're assuming I've not watched something; you're not my eyes and ears, and you're not in my head. As a result, you don't know what I have and haven't watched. This is a bad assumption on your part.

The point of putting up these video's were clearly for discussion, she says so in her own goddamn video's, yet silences any communication based on the threat of being harassed. If she want's discussion, she should allow discussion, not cry like a little b`itch over "tits or get the pineapple out". It's melodramatic, and ironic as f`uck to be honest. If she feels confident enough to project her idea's, then she should have confidence to see the feedback, which she has torn away.

Your definition of "starting a discussion" is different from mine, then. There are more ways to start a discussion than YouTube comments, which is clearly obvious because the legitimate comments get overwhelmed by those that should never be seen (or said). You can discuss things elsewhere and utilise the video as a starting point.

It's entirely retarded to try to have a discussion with her because if isn't positive reinforcement, it's disregarded, wasted effort.

What's a wasted effort is to call you out on your use of 'retarded.' If you can't vent your frustrations somewhere that's off of YouTube, you have a problem. It's your right to make baseless assumptions on a video; if you can't figure out how to talk about it elsewhere, you need to re-evaluate yourself. I've given you alternatives to the blackhole that is YouTube commenting, but you're willingly ignoring it.

So based on her reaction of the comments as victimizing herself, I can judge her character, which is, delicate, much like the female characters she criticizes. Seriously, if I was in her position, I would have left all communication open, I want to see how the general public reflects on my opinion. If youtube is really that useless she shouldn't have reflected her "educated" opinion there.

But you'll never be in her position, which is the problem. It's quite clear to me that you're not capable of putting yourself in someone else's situation. After this, I have no further reason to respond to anything else. Based on your presentation, I can assume that you need to learn skills regarding empathy.

By the way, I know you're from a different country, but for the life of me, the dictionary, in all languages from pomegranatety half assed translations, does not refer to rape as a gender specific action. If it is, it's moronic as men, although unlikely, can be forced too.

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.

Just as i felt with the first video, my opinion remains the same.

I feel there's a huge problem with focusing so much on criticizing the creative choices of others. You may disagree with fundamental core concepts of what companies choose to release, but in the end they're still private works and i can't help but cringe at the thought of what's basically being said: 'your imagination causes problems, stop that.'

No matter how prevalent the trend is, i just don't feel like that's okay on a moral level unless its an explicit promotion of oppression OR the offensive trope is clearly intended to be the focus of the work.

Even I, being black, have played through many a game where either no people of my skin color were in the game or remained in background, irrelevant roles. However, I still don't hold it against these specific companies cause i believe in the right to someone's creative space that strongly.

The point of that wasn't to say 'if i can deal with it so can you'. But to emphasize how central that belief is to me.

I believe this the wrong way to fight this battle as its percieved. I feel if we really want to change this; then instead of attacking the imaginations of others and violating people's creative space as if its public property;We use that SAME energy to PROMOTE the games that ARE more equality friendly, or involve a strong, female protagonist to help shape and BRING BALANCE to the characters and stories games have to offer.

Heck, one of the games I'm excited for and actually just made a blog post about seems to describe a very promising female protagonist in Cryamore; All the descriptions so far describe her as a intelligent female character; being an inventor that the whole town relies on for research on the resource known as cryamore. The trailer video also fully emphasizes her love of technology too.

Rather than just attacking tropes, I feel there's so much potential if this level of energy was used to seek out and actively PROMOTE active female characters to bring balance to the media.

This makes no sense because you're assuming I've not watched something; you're not my eyes and ears, and you're not in my head. As a result, you don't know what I have and haven't watched. This is a bad assumption on your part.

If you did watch it you wouldn't make such ignorant statements, so you can say I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. It seems my assumption is correct as you didn't actually correct me, just criticized my assumption, which was completely legitimate.

Your definition of "starting a discussion" is different from mine, then. There are more ways to start a discussion than YouTube comments, which is clearly obvious because the legitimate comments get overwhelmed by those that should never be seen (or said). You can discuss things elsewhere and utilise the video as a starting point.

Doesn't matter, by taking the ability for the community at all to their feelings about her opinion, through legitimate means like voting and statistics and such is just showing her lack of confidence in her own opinion. She has already been proven to be melodramatic.

What's a wasted effort is to call you out on your use of 'retarded.' If you can't vent your frustrations somewhere that's off of YouTube, you have a problem. It's your right to make baseless assumptions on a video; if you can't figure out how to talk about it elsewhere, you need to re-evaluate yourself. I've given you alternatives to the blackhole that is YouTube commenting, but you're willingly ignoring it.

Instead of skimming and embarrassing yourself, you should read my posts then take a moment to think about them. They aren't baseless, I have made these conclusions and explained how I have made these conclusions. I don't understand how you can entirely miss that, even ignore those points all together. But as you said, it's your right to attempt to make baseless criticism.

But you'll never be in her position, which is the problem. It's quite clear to me that you're not capable of putting yourself in someone else's situation. After this, I have no further reason to respond to anything else. Based on your presentation, I can assume that you need to learn skills regarding empathy.

...Again, it's you who's being baseless. I take online harassment all the time, although mine isn't as amplified as her's, but the comments are no different than playing a regular game of CoD, honestly. That's why it's so sad, because thousands of people a day verbally get insulted like that. For f`uck sake I get worse from my day to day job. "tits or gtfo" is like meme standard, yet she tried to use that to milk sympathy? This isn't an empathy problem, it's a hypocritical problem on her end.

I'm from the United States, smart one. I live in Australia.

Sorry, again, benefit of the doubt considering it's really hard to f`uck up a definition when google is right there.

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.

...I marked it as BY THE WAY because it wasn't part of my general argument nor was put towards me. And also;

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

How the f`uck do you read that any other way than wrong. It literally states that it's DEFINED, as in the definition is violence against women. I don't attack people over petty things, but that was just wrong, so wrong that I had to bring up. And facts? Sit down and stop trying to say face. This is ridiculous, you're trying to sit here and tell me that I was missing some context when your statement is typed as a "Truth"?

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.

Research huh? I can't believe you're a teacher. It's cute how you looked up a wiki page link and said "Oh I got him now!". The FBI recently changed it. By your logic there would be no male rape cases. Also to correct you further, it's not women on man that is considered "rape" but male on male. Then again a quick search will yield results of people prosecuted for raping males.

And didn't really say? Read your goddamn quote, there's no other way to interpret that, outside being unable to process simple sentence comprehension. How about we don't make such stupid mistakes, rather than complain about people correcting you over them.

So, anyone want to listen to someone talk about this video for 2 hours?


[video=youtube;aukF_6wTS-o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aukF_6wTS-o[/video]

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.

[COLOR="#000000"]

Also to correct you further, it's not women on man that is considered "rape" but male on male.

It's both.

A man can be raped [by a woman] if he is:

1) impaired by drugs or alcohol
2) under the age of consent (16-18 in most states)
3) physically handicapped or limited
4) physically forced or coerced by a woman

There's just not as many cases due to the embarrassment of admitting to the police that you were raped by a gender society deems as "weaker", this isn't a feminist argument what-so-ever as I'm actually against feminism (well modern feminism). I've been lurking this thread due to the lulz nikki is giving me, but I had to create an account to correct you on that statement. Afterall, the penis is just a nerve, you have limited control over it. [/COLOR]

~Sha

It's both.



There's just not as many cases due to the embarrassment of admitting to the police that you were raped by a gender society deems as "weaker", this isn't a feminist argument what-so-ever as I'm actually against feminism (well modern feminism). I've been lurking this thread due to the lulz nikki is giving me, but I had to create an account to correct you on that statement. Afterall, the penis is just a nerve, you have limited control over it.

~Sha

I'll concede that. I skimmed over the actual law.

So much mad in this thread.

Never in my entire registered life here on Southperry have I seen such an idiotic post.
[...]
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.

Yeah, your confirmation bias is clearly more correct than hers. Because you're a man. And she isn't. Did you watch the video? She gives literally dozens of examples of brutal deaths.

Yeah, your confirmation bias is clearly more correct than hers. Because you're a man. And she isn't. Did you watch the video? She gives literally dozens of examples of brutal deaths.

Yes.

Dante's Inferno and what have you. Depends on your definition of "brutal", I've seen much more gruesome deaths play out in video games and don't feel as if the mention of gender should even be worth anything. Also BTW, I did not mention anywhere in my post that because I am a male that I am the ultimate superior correct individual ITT. In fact I find the notion of even mentioning the gender of the person posting completely idiotic.

It's not that big of a difference. D:Looking through the different years, it's interesting to note that in 2006, around 38% of players were female. Just looked at the Canadian site as well for kicks. 2011 shows 38% of players being female and 2012 shows 46%.

what kind of games are we talking able. The term Gamer or statics on number of players who pay games can be easy skewed if you count social games. Strictly social games should be excluded because they dont have any story and rarely portray anything human like.

Im in agreement with [MENTION=4235]KhainiWest[/MENTION]; She can't handle being challenged. Taking of the ratings is ok because it does interfere with the searching but the comments dont. How will she convert people into accepting her idea if people cant take the time to challenge her's to see if her's is better than the one individuals already created.

I think Anita wants to change people's minds about how to view women in videogames but she can't because she is unable deal with the shi't that comes with doing these kinds of social movements. I also find she is considering herself a victim more than she should considering she trying to stop women being victims in videogames. I find she reinforces these bad images of women more than she disarms them.

what kind of games are we talking able. The term Gamer or statics on number of players who pay games can be easy skewed if you count social games. Strictly social games should be excluded because they dont have any story and rarely portray anything human like.

Drawing the line on "What is a gamer" at anything other than "a person who plays videogames", which yes, will include social games, is skewing the data. Whether you like it or not, the people playing farmville or whatever the big facebook game is now are gamers too.

If you draw the line at "not having any story", then you have to discount other things too. For instance, New Super Mario brothers Wii/Wii u could have its entire "story" summarized in a single sentence. Clearly that would be a silly thing to do.

How will she convert people into accepting her idea if people cant take the time to challenge her's to see if her's is better than the one individuals already created.

Because she doesn't care for converting people. That isn't what she wants. What she wants is for females/feminists to be dominant, and that her way of thinking is "right" whether or not you actually agree.

Also, it virtually impossible to convert people to your way of thinking (especially on something as controversial as this) through the internet, especially not the people who would be commenting on the videos. So I can imagine why she wouldn't be trying.

Yeah, your confirmation bias is clearly more correct than hers. Because you're a man. And she isn't. Did you watch the video? She gives literally dozens of examples of brutal deaths.

...Are you joking? You'll notice a really common trend with almost all those examples, that being they are off screen. Seriously do any of you play video games? God of war literally has HD resolution of him ripping off helios' head and using it as a lantern.

Also I lol'd at he borderlands example of angel, considering there are two female characters you can play. Not to mention the real tragic heartbreaking deaths, none of them are female.

Because she doesn't care for converting people. That isn't what she wants. What she wants is for females/feminists to be dominant, and that her way of thinking is "right" whether or not you actually agree.

Also, it virtually impossible to convert people to your way of thinking (especially on something as controversial as this) through the internet, especially not the people who would be commenting on the videos. So I can imagine why she wouldn't be trying.

Again, by muting everything about the video, she misleads people of it's worth to get as many views as possible. Then her little house of fans cluck to her how great she is. If her video is terrible, it should be seen as terrible. Quite frankly the more I rewatch it, the more I realize she's the epitome of a straw feminist.

Just as i felt with the first video, my opinion remains the same.

I feel there's a huge problem with focusing so much on criticizing the creative choices of others. You may disagree with fundamental core concepts of what companies choose to release, but in the end they're still private works and i can't help but cringe at the thought of what's basically being said: 'your imagination causes problems, stop that.'

No matter how prevalent the trend is, i just don't feel like that's okay on a moral level unless its an explicit promotion of oppression OR the offensive trope is clearly intended to be the focus of the work.

Even I, being black, have played through many a game where either no people of my skin color were in the game or remained in background, irrelevant roles. However, I still don't hold it against these specific companies cause i believe in the right to someone's creative space that strongly.

The point of that wasn't to say 'if i can deal with it so can you'. But to emphasize how central that belief is to me.

I believe this the wrong way to fight this battle as its percieved. I feel if we really want to change this; then instead of attacking the imaginations of others and violating people's creative space as if its public property;We use that SAME energy to PROMOTE the games that ARE more equality friendly, or involve a strong, female protagonist to help shape and BRING BALANCE to the characters and stories games have to offer.

Heck, one of the games I'm excited for and actually just made a blog post about seems to describe a very promising female protagonist in Cryamore; All the descriptions so far describe her as a intelligent female character; being an inventor that the whole town relies on for research on the resource known as cryamore. The trailer video also fully emphasizes her love of technology too.

Rather than just attacking tropes, I feel there's so much potential if this level of energy was used to seek out and actively PROMOTE active female characters to bring balance to the media.

I have that same problem too as I am also black. And sometimes I just want to say. "how many strong decent black characters, male or female, are there in video game. Or even black people that show up. None. so deal with your own problem" but obviously that isnt the correct way of thinking.

That bolded part is why im commenting on this actually. That is like 110% of how these people (don't want to call them feminist because in my selfish own little world, thats not what they are) should handle these kinds of issues where they want the marketplace to spit out more female friendly stuff. But also I think they need to build up some tolerance toward these unfriendly to women things. Not everything will be target toward a general audience.

Again, by muting everything about the video, she misleads people of it's worth to get as many views as possible. Then her little house of fans cluck to her how great she is. If her video is terrible, it should be seen as terrible. Quite frankly the more I rewatch it, the more I realize she's the epitome of a straw feminist.

Ok. Lets be incredibly conservative and say only 1% of the people who watched it disagree with her enough to comment (hahaha no). That would still bring it up to over 4000 people who would be expecting replies from her or "her little house of fans".

She couldn't possibly reply to them, and what do you think her "fans" would reply? Certainly nothing of worth: The ones who would bother replying to the people who disagree with Sarkesian would be even worse than she is, and again, you'll never convince more than a handful of people (at best) of changing their opinions through the internet, it just doesn't work that way.

You're taking far too much offense at her having comments turned off, as if she had some massive power to block discussion on the other millions of websites and videos that exist on the internet.

Besides that, if you really have watched the video more than once or twice, you're really only enabling her opinion (Because she wants her voice heard, she doesn't care by who)

Ok. Lets be incredibly conservative and say only 1% of the people who watched it disagree with her enough to comment (hahaha no). That would still bring it up to over 4000 people who would be expecting replies from her or "her little house of fans".

She couldn't possibly reply to them, and what do you think her "fans" would reply? Certainly nothing of worth: The ones who would bother replying to the people who disagree with Sarkesian would be even worse than she is, and again, you'll never convince more than a handful of people (at best) of changing their opinions through the internet, it just doesn't work that way.

You're taking far too much offense at her having comments turned off, as if she had some massive power to block discussion on the other millions of websites and videos that exist on the internet.

Besides that, if you really have watched the video more than once or twice, you're really only enabling her opinion (Because she wants her voice heard, she doesn't care by who)

It's not just the comments, the entire shabang. I find it dishonest and lack of confidence, name one other person or organization that has disabled all of the above that has a very propaganda-esque message. I can name two off the top of my head who do this commonly, Faux news and any christian nutbag who thinks homosexuals should be burned at the stake.

I'm forced to rewatch it to see if I missed something or if people are just exaggerating her already exaggerated claims unfortunately.

Haha, the turn this thread took after I was gone for a couple days is quite funny. But since I apparently have some things to sort out here, here I go:

First, sorry Sardines for mistaking you for Harrison. Other people were mentioning it and I mistook you for him. Should've just called you Sardines, sorry.

Next:

So much mad in this thread.

I know right?

This is needlessly obnoxious. And intelligent conversation? I know the concept of tone doesn't come across to you, but he's talking down to you, because from the information you posted, it was retarded point to make.

1) Little details? So what, the fact that she silences everyone based on bad feedback which in fact is pretty petty in comparison is not a stand alone point? Of course it is. All youtubers, ALL OF THEM, deal with this. Yet, the moment SHE had to, she had to make a goddamn presentation about how "Tits and get the pineapple out" is just heart piercing. She's melodramatic and victimizing herself IRONICALLY by trying to hide all criticism.

2) By your logic, anything on youtube would be badly rated/attacked over "mundane" things. Which is utter bull sh`it. How you present yourself, in and out of the video really determines the feedback. Half the rage these people have is they can't reflect their opinions. If you watch my video's you can see this perspective is not only shared by me, BUT IS ENTIRELY THE PROBLEM.

Get off your high horse.

Well, first of all Sardines said that he wasn't talking down to me. And if he was then no I was not paying attention. I wouldn't have cared either way. After reading some if not all of what he's said in this topic I value his opinion more than yours. I would have listened to him if he pointed out any problems with what I was saying and then that would've been the end of it. I don't get angry if people talk down to me, people have been doing that all my life and will probably continue to do so even if I someday amount all of the knowledge in the world. It's not that I don't register tone it's that I don't get angry over things like that anymore and that may be mistaken as not knowing when someone is making fun of me or talking down to me to a third person. I personally get it but it doesn't mean that I go on about it.

As for your complaint of her blocking Youtube comments, I've seen some musicians that disable comments in some of their videos but not in others. I'll give you an example too. Tegan and Sara's Northshore has comments disabled but their newest song I Was A Fool doesn't. They are both sisters and are both gay and get harassed by Youtubers all the time for it I believe. If you look at the I Was a Fool video, top rated comment is "Actually they are human beings. Not dykes". Not saying this has anything to do with this particular tropes video but sometimes if you know what the comments are going to be like you may as well just disable them. It can be seen as hiding from bad press much like an embattled politician but people with conviction stick with their conviction normally no matter how much bad press it gets them. It's a part of being able to freely speak your mind and that should be encouraged rather than what some, including you, are trying to do, which is shut her up. She may overuse the melodrama a bit. So what. If you are trying to get people to listen to you you have to use some means to get them to. And she has gotten you. She shall now enjoy some ad revenue thanks to you but not thanks to me because I did not watch the video. Yes you heard me, everything I've been talking about is because I didn't watch it. And why? Because it had spoilers dammit! I HATE SPOILERS. So I went the general way and not the warpath a few of you have taken in your quest to support or defame this woman. I didn't want to take part in that.

As for your "anything on youtube would be badly rated/attacked over "mundane" things" idea, I said good things, not everything. Some things should make you angry. Some videos you will agree or disagree with the musician or reviewer or anybody with an opinion on something you have an opinion on. It just seems like an obsession to some Youtubers to drag down all that is good in something to a level where it fits their image of what it should be or whether or not it is 100% complete in its logic etc. Presentation is part of it like you said because people generally like theatrics. As for your half the rage these people have comment, I would actually like a bit more information on that as what has yet to be said in this thread is how people who make Youtube videos communicate with their fans and handle that rage. And no I will not watch your videos, you big meanie

Get off my high horse? I'll have you know that I am a tall fellow and if I am in need of a horse I would actually need a high horse to be able to ride. But do you care about other people's problems? No, it's just me me me. I hate this, I love that, nobody is listening to me, why are you all such idiots and not listening to my opinion...wah wah wah. My perspective was to try and inform a bit on issues that were being said by Sardines but not being reinforced by anyone else. It doesn't matter to me if anybody listens because I know by now that nobody listens to me. I just like talking and since it's a free country and free forum you'll just have to put up with it.

Oh and no I will not reply to anything else said in this thread as Locked summed it up pretty much. In fact, I think this thread should be...

( •_•)

( •_•)>⌐■-■

(⌐■_■

LOCKED.

YEAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

(I am so sorry Locked)