If a male hero goes on a quest to revenge the pointless death of his wife it's chauvinistic because the female character got killed soley for the purpose of driving the story.
If a female heroin goes on a quest to revenge the pointless death of her husband it's chauvinistic because the only reason she has to go on that quest is her husband's death? (And this story would also fail the Bechtel Test because she always talks about stuff related to her husband...)
If a male hero goes on a quest to revenge the pointless death of his wife it's chauvinistic because the female character got killed soley for the purpose of driving the story.
If a female heroin goes on a quest to revenge the pointless death of her husband it's chauvinistic because the only reason she has to go on that quest is her husband's death? (And this story would also fail the Bechtel Test because she always talks about stuff related to her husband...)
Yes to both. She has another video on True Grit, and explains that while it's great the central character is an actress, and a young one at that, she's basically written as a male character, but cast as a woman. It fails the Bechdel test and she isn't a very feminist character, showing neither growth (she's the same character from first scene to last) as well as being written full of typical male characteristics.
So yes, it's possible to write/have/script to seemingly opposite situations, where both are highly sexist. It's also possible to have both situations without it being sexist. The death of a wife could be motivator, but then all other treatments of the wife (reminiscing plus flashbacks, interactions with women in the actual story, etc, could all be done well with the women portrayed with full agency, and names! Same with the 2nd scenario, the dead husband could be the impetus, but as long as the female character still has a full personality, and isn't just a robot drone trying to fulfill the will of the husband (revenge) she can be portrayed as a full person.
Well I did watch two of her videos in their fullest, and in both cases she was being sensationalist, not making much point besides repeating herself over and over again, and ending up all angry and disrespectful all by herself. It just doesn't make me want to watch any more of these - just a matter of taste!
She most likely has other things to say, but a huge part of the enjoyment of enlightenment coming from a conversation is how well articulated a point is. After having the pleasure of talking with a very respectful and intelligent women rights activist in real life, the girl from these videos seemed angry and annoying in comparaison, and that just doesn't make me want to watch more ...
Again, no one here is disagreeing with the fact that women are overly objectified in the media, and that this can have bad consequences because of uneducated idiot males douchebags. As a matter of fact, I find it just as annoying when I see a picture of a naked David Beckham suggestively framed juuuuuuuuuust above his penis in order to sell a freaking bottle of cologne at the store. Both are stupid! We get that. But if she makes a video about that ... then it's fair to expect more from just stating examples and getting angry. Also, since it is an edited video and not a casual conversation recorded "live", it is her duty to edit and revision it when she realizes that some of her points don't make any sense ("Picasso makes me puke, he was inspired by women!)...
and isn't just a robot drone trying to fulfill the will of the husband (revenge) she can be portrayed as a full person.
it's not the husband's will to get revenge. the dude is dead... revenge characters are always narrowed down to being "robot drone"s on a quest.
she isn't a very feminist character, showing neither growth (she's the same character from first scene to last) as well as being written full of typical male characteristics.
so, being a flat (or consistent) character is something specifically male or sexist? having male characteristics isn't allowed for a girl? should she follow the stereotypes or not? this sounds contradictary to me.
I don't know... I do understand the criticism to a certain degree, but then again, I want to cater my stories to a certain audience and I write a story for that specific audience and tell everyone else to "like it or not". I don't see much sexism in most of these stories, as (in my example in the post above) you could most of the time replace characters at random and they would still work. Reading sexism, racism etc. into those stories because they don't feature a certain person as the main actor or even exclusively is a bit holier-than-thou. Much like in the Morgan Freeman video about Black-History-Month, the ever pointing out what gender or race some one is, could well be more segregating. A lot of women I know don't care about the genders in any movie and can relate to male and female roles just as much.
Yes to both. She has another video on True Grit, and explains that while it's great the central character is an actress, and a young one at that, she's basically written as a male character, but cast as a woman. It fails the Bechdel test and she isn't a very feminist character, showing neither growth (she's the same character from first scene to last) as well as being written full of typical male characteristics.
Woah woah - going to have to watch this video because I very much disagree with that. In True Grit she isn't a very feminine character, but that's because she's a product of her environment. Living in a harsh western town, where death is common, and women are relegated to household roles and must act proper. Her rebellion against this is to take up the role of a man in this environment, for her own ends. - but this is very grounded in the time and setting of the film. There was very little of anything that you could call 'counter culture' and very few female role models breaking the mold. Probably none in small town western america in that time. There is definitely growth in her character and I feel like true grit is a terrible example.
To me this is like the people who complain that "As is typical of fantasy films, there are no black or minority characters in the new Pixar film, 'Brave"! NO SHIT there are no black dudes in 11th century SCOTLAND.
The Beschdel test is a great measuring rod, but it is not one size fits all.
Woah woah - going to have to watch this video because I very much disagree with that. In True Grit she isn't a very feminine character, but that's because she's a product of her environment. Living in a harsh western town, where death is common, and women are relegated to household roles and must act proper. Her rebellion against this is to take up the role of a man in this environment, for her own ends. - but this is very grounded in the time and setting of the film. There was very little of anything that you could call 'counter culture' and very few female role models breaking the mold. Probably none in small town western america in that time. There is definitely growth in her character and I feel like true grit is a terrible example.
To me this is like the people who complain that "As is typical of fantasy films, there are no black or minority characters in the new Pixar film, 'Brave"! NO SHIT there are no black dudes in 11th century SCOTLAND.
The Beschdel test is a great measuring rod, but it is not one size fits all.
Right, but there were also no dragons or magic or talking animals in 11th century scotland. Pixar could easily write in a character of color and the only people it would upset would be the racists, it would in no way ruin the movie on narrative alone.
And she says exactly what you did about the Bechdel test, it does not ensure a feminist movie as trash like Sucker Punch passes the test, but amazing movies like Moon and Up fail. It's merely a tool that when applied across numerous titles, can be used to show a pattern that there are far FAR fewer named female characters with fully written personalities than there are male ones, which is problematic when actual society is 50/50 men/women.
You should watch it though. I agree (with her) the character showed little growth. She was basically already a full confident, nothing phases her, person in the first scene. This isn't something I'll defend though, because again, I'm a man, and this is more of a subjective point as to whether she is portrayed as largely masculine or feminine.
I find it hilarious that we can live in a culture where 1 in 6 American women has been sexually molested, that advertising is completely and unarguably full of dehumanizing and objectifying imagery toward women, and when someone suggests this is because of a systematic objectification of women by a largely straight male dominated industry, people disagree.
I find it problematic that people are trying to turn this into a male vs. female thing, as if every straight man is only trying to dehumanise the other sex. I'll have you know that I, too, feel offended every time a deodorant commercial comes up, because its marketers assume that I'll love something as long as it's associated with breasts. The media act as if we straight men are incredibly shallow and small of focus, and you seem to be believing them.
So you take it as evidence that because you don't feel a certain way, no one does? Do you really think they would be paying for these commercials if they didn't pass focus groups and result in more sales? Please.
Men are victims of this degrading sexism as well, but it's far more damaging to women. That's why feminism is about equality, it's not about women only. If the damaging aspects toward women are fixed, it will benefit men as well.
If anything, sexism in advertising in the US is worse now than it was in the 70s. This woman has made her life studies about sexism in advertising. It's a great watch but I'm sure several of you (men of course, curious the women of the thread have expressed agreement) will accuse her too of being angry and reactionary.
...and when someone suggests this is because of a systematic objectification of women by a largely straight male dominated industry, people disagree. It's really ludicrous, and ignorant, to be honest. It shows that you haven't stopped to think about the way women have been portrayed in games, movies, and comics in any way, other than to stare.
The attraction to the female body is not going to go away anytime soon, and deep inside the reptile brain we'll be objectifying bodies wherever we go, but much like everything else that is bad but essentially a core of what it is to be human, we don't let it get to us. People are people.
We reach equality by objectifying both sexes, just look at the recent bioware games, where we have the ideal man or woman for the player.
Personally I'm fine with that, I enjoy experiencing things, I like murdering people in games, I like seeing attractive people, but I don't find any joy in treating any person any less than human, because I was raised and grew up with those standards.
Isn't this fundamentally an issue that starts at how someone is raised or what experiences he/she gains? Removing any "sexism" in games, movies or ads will not make the reptile brain go away, people were way beyond sexist back in the olde days.
Isn't this fundamentally an issue that starts at how someone is raised or what experiences he/she gains? Removing any "sexism" in games, movies or ads will not make the reptile brain go away, people were way beyond sexist back in the olde days.
Upon reading that I can't help but think that is true, you rarely say something i dont agree with eld
It's a great watch but I'm sure several of you (men of course, curious the women of the thread have expressed agreement) will accuse her too of being angry and reactionary.
Again, you're immediately assuming the worst of men, Poop. I, for one, thought that was a very good presentation and it's leagues better than the ones you started this thread with (which were also interesting, despite flawed in ways). For one thing, Kilbourne never tries to create a gender dichotomy. Most of her examples, I think, are from women's magazines, so with a female audience in mind.
Feminist Frequency's argument is that men are trying to keep women down. Kilbourne's argument is that the media aren't depicting people responsibly. Those are way different, and it's only the first one I have issues with.
What is a shame is that Jean Kilbourne only shortly mentions the depiction of men in media. It's partially the same problem as with women, namely that the media act irresponsibly and give a false and undesirable sense of normalcy; in this case that males ought to be violent. But I think it's just as big a problem. Recall the video about Lego you posted in the Kara thread; the genders got divided and girls ended up with 'Friendship' and boys with several lines focusing on battling. Which of the two ended up with the less respectful treatment?
The attraction to the female body is not going to go away anytime soon, and deep inside the reptile brain we'll be objectifying bodies wherever we go, but much like everything else that is bad but essentially a core of what it is to be human, we don't let it get to us. People are people.
We reach equality by objectifying both sexes, just look at the recent bioware games, where we have the ideal man or woman for the player.
I think the issue here is that we think we have to REACH a certain point or intellectual agreement. We don't, we just have drop the act, but that's nearly impossible, nowadays.
Sex is the major theme in Ads these days. So just like these ads are making people into shop-aholics, so then, equally they turn people into sex-aholics (both sexes becoming the prey, if you will).
So the issue then becomes more intricate, when it's complicated (both preys blaming each other) rather than simplifying it.
Sex is equal to drugs these days. It's hard to kick, as a desire.
Sex is best when it happens by itself (with you and your partner) not when one asks the other.
Largely speaking, the Half Naked male hero with a ripped body and perfect hair is not in the game to appeal to women. He's in the game for the dudes sake, to see how cool and badass he is. Ripped half naked badasses are ripped half naked badasses, because that's who we want to be when we save the world. Meanwhile most half naked women, are there to look hawt for men.
True, but we think that because we're seeing it from a man's perspective. Couldn't you say the exact same thing if you were a woman? That the chainmail-bikini elf is there to look like a badass woman because that's who you (as a woman) want to be when you save the world, and the half-naked ripped badass man is just eye-candy?
I think the bottom line is, everyone wants to look hot while kicking ass. I don't see why this would be different for women.
point is: men are just as much targeted by "you have to look like this" or "you have to own this". and women will always compare men to advertisment figures just the same. it only becomes a problem if a) you can only see other people in comparison to advertisment or b) you can't get over your self not looking like one of the poster-kids. both is not a systematic failure, it's ones own individual upbringing that will change that - male or female.
I think the bottom line is, everyone wants to look hot while kicking ass. I don't see why this would be different for women.
I think there was something said along those lines in one of the gamesindustry mentor things? I cant remember.
But the problem with that line of thought bigjohn is that youre still inside the box with that comment, youre not questioning the definition of "hot". Not that i'm going to argue that being a fat slob is attractive...
just an observation here, its seems pretty apparent that regardless of how much relevant, true, noteworthy information you have to present about your argument, it is 100% worthless if you say one derogatory statement toward your opposition. i could write a 5 pages of how awesome Gloria Steinem is, but if say i like boobies at the very end it completely invalidates everything i just said. its sad really that personal pride and getting all butt hurt will get in the way of any real conversation about topics such as this ever being had. What happens is one side expressing a concern, this concern makes the other side feel as though they are being accused of being a bad person and now they get defensive, then the name calling starts. i have a 3 year old, its a lot like watching him fight over who plays with the train next.
as a straight man i have to realistically say and admit i have no problem with half naked women being plastered everywhere, and i never will. never. maybe if i have a daughter, but unless its her i probably still wont. I also don't care if men are naked selling something, as an artist i actually find the male form more interesting but that's another topic. it's not the point. the point is i see a bunch of men getting all up in arms about a topic i KNOW they don't give one shit about only because they think they are being made out as the bad guy. look, its not about men doing and feeling the things men do being bad, wrong or unnatural. its about equality , fairness, and respect.
please stop pretending you have anything worth while to say about woman's rights and issues, you don't. you have no say at all at what you personally think they should feel, that's the problem. they don't need to chill out, or just accept it. I didn't choose to be a straight white male, i just was and for me to believe i don't have it better, or have an advantage over every other demographic of human is ignorant.
but no one likes the finger pointed at them, even the privileged. i have to realize that even if i don't care about woman's rights, doesn't mean they are not entitled to them, and that if women were treated fairly it would not change my life at all. all my favorite movies would still be my favorite movies, all my favorite restaurants, it doesn't threaten my life at all. so whats the problem with it? whats the opposition? seems like the most that will change in mens lives if women were treated equally is that there would be less women calling men pigs and assholes, and that seems to be the real problem men are having with any of this.
I went ahead and watched all the videos she's done and, few problems aside, I agree with almost everything she says. The obvious question then to ask is how to do you proceed in bringing about some form of change to the way things are? In one of her videos on BitTorrent/Wikipedia she argues that things are the way they are because men produce most of the content online. Is this because there aren't enough women to produce this content? It seems like a problem which is inherently cyclical/self fulfilling, where women and men are defined into these roles by the media, tradition, religion, etc. which leads us to assuming those roles unfortunately placing a significant amount of men in a place where they are the providers of media, therefore further defining women into these roles.
Basically, my question is, what is the solution for the problem? Is it for men to start writing better roles for women in movies (I sincerely think there are a lot of people trying but according to her still getting it wrong), or for men and women to encourage more women to get involved in media, or something else entirely?
On a side note, I read an article written by a straight man a while back in response to a Huggies ad about being a stay at home dad and how that role is still stereotyped and seen as weak, inferior, etc. by the media and the general public.
I don't see anything in the industry that is restricting diversity in hiring. It's societal mores that have existed that says girls don't go into tech. I see this changing, when I was growing up using a computer was considered weird and nerdy but now a computer & internet connection is considered as essential as water and electricity.
When I went to college (I went to ultra-nerd school: Digipen), the guy/girl ratio was 10/1 at best in my program. The year after I graduated, the freshman male/female ratio was almost 50/50. We may see a shift away from the male gaze in media sooner than we think.
...snip....Is this because there aren't enough women to produce this content? It seems like a problem which is inherently cyclical/self fulfilling, where women and men are defined into these roles by the media, tradition, religion, etc. which leads us to assuming those roles unfortunately placing a significant amount of men in a place where they are the providers of media, therefore further defining women into these roles.
Basically, my question is, what is the solution for the problem? Is it for men to start writing better roles for women in movies (I sincerely think there are a lot of people trying but according to her still getting it wrong), or for men and women to encourage more women to get involved in media, or something else entirely?..snip...
Obviously it's one thing to notice a glaring problem, and another to have a good solution. I can see this glaring problem, but I don't know enough about psychology or sociology to claim a perfect answer. I do think you hit the nail on the head at the end. Guys need to start being more aware of the content they create, currently holding the majority of creative positions in advertisments/movies/comics/games/magazines and that should naturally result in a more friendly atmosphere for women to go into and succeed in these fields.
It's a great watch but I'm sure several of you (men of course, curious the women of the thread have expressed agreement) will accuse her too of being angry and reactionary.
Sorry Poop, I'm not sure how attitudes like this are anything other than biased and damaging in and of themselves.
You seem to be inferring that anyone who reacted negatively to a woman who makes obvious assumptions and touts examples that in reality work against her(read the Big Barda "Death of the New Gods" comic.)
You also seem to be indicating that you know that the only negative reactions were male, and thereby imply that there are no females that would react negatively in the same manner. I know women who would "puke"(to use the woman in the vids terms) at the statements this woman makes, and her lack of interest in taking the small amount of effort it takes double check her own references.
Why is it that a woman this passionate about her cause can't actually research and provide actual examples that she herself has even bothered to read? Why is it that this doesn't bother you? I react negatively to anyone who claims to be a proponent of some type of change, claiming to be "in the know" about important issues, while simultaneously insulting another group, and yet simply makes videos while parroting things she hasn't bothered to double check.
Why shouldn't we expect people to react negatively to someone who takes the time to stand behind an issue with such ferocity, yet who doesn't bother to take the time to even understand the very reference she cites?
I do find it interesting that your reaction to others reactions, seems to be right in line with the woman's video you first posted. Basically sounds like- "If you don't see it exactly the way I do, you're probably a chauvinist, and likely part of the problem." "Women are the only ones who don't react negatively."
I haven't really noticed anyone in this thread stating that there are no problems in society or media that negatively effect women. Simply many who see that this one woman happens to have an inability to speak in an unbiased, and sexist manner herself.
Also wanted to say that just in case of misunderstanding, I never meant any of my words in my rant to be an attack on you, or anyone else personally, my responses were solely directed at responding to the statements in the vid. I'm pretty sure that I kept it impersonal, but just in case.
I don't see anything in the industry that is restricting diversity in hiring. It's societal mores that have existed that says girls don't go into tech. I see this changing, when I was growing up using a computer was considered weird and nerdy but now a computer & internet connection is considered as essential as water and electricity.
Maybe you've worked at more egalitarian companies than me, but I can remember highly restrictive atmospheres at every company I've worked at toward women. I didn't even feel comfortable being openly gay at any of my past game studios till CCP for fear of being restricted out of the boys club where good reputation and promotions/raises come from.
In fact I can remember a specific company that you and I both worked at that shall go unnamed where a very talented female character artist was practically shut out of any meaningful meetings or decision making purely because she was female. Language that left no room for any confusion as to why, was used. Her gender in specific was referenced.
I can believe you've never noticed it (and why would you, as a man you'd never face it) but to suggest there is no restrictions toward women in game hiring is simply absurd.
Just think of it this way. I've personally fucked several male polycounters but I'll never have someone mentally thinking my career, salary or position (till maybe this admission) was related to my sexuality or appearance. The reverse is self-evidently false. Any attractive woman is naturally assumed to have at the very least flirted her way into the hire, if not outright slept into it. Even when capable, they are considered "very good... for a girl" etc etc. Maybe not consciously, but women are absolutely treated differently by their male co-workers, including raises and hires.
Why is it that a woman this passionate about her cause can't actually research and provide actual examples that she herself has even bothered to read? Why is it that this doesn't bother you? I react negatively to anyone who claims to be a proponent of some type of change, claiming to be "in the know" about important issues, while simultaneously insulting another group, and yet simply makes videos while parroting things she hasn't bothered to double check.
What are you talking about? She references multiple studies, authors, books, and research, by name even. If you go to the actual website, www.feministfrequency.com the links for each video are included.
Conversely, we have in this thread, men who have never even given a passing thought to these subjects, that within 5 minutes of being aware of them, come into the thread to post their thoughts at how it's all rubbish and made up her head.
Feminist theory is an actual field. Women (and men) have spent their entire lives researching these subjects. That women are treated differently and most often more negatively than men in popular culture is simply inarguable, with mountains of research behind it. I'm not going to claim everything she's said is 100% right, but she has far more legitimate points than the majority of people in this thread are giving credit for, who are largely handwaving it all away.
People (who were male) actually did say that the original author was just angry and reactionary. How is that insulting? it's a fact, I can go back and quote them for you. If it was worded in such a way that you think I was implying *all* men, then I apologize. I did not mean it that way.
That hasn't been my experience. Although I'm sure it does happen.
But what I've seen is exactly the opposite. It's almost like a meme now. We talk about people who also ran for the job that someone just got, and then the joke ultimately comes up "And if one of those was a girl, you'd be fucked". Meaning we'd hire a girl before a guy. And this isn't some weird sexual thing, it's just that we sincerely want more diversity. As to someone being gay... that's kinda hard to tell unless they put that on their resume, but I can't imagine who would do that.
The one thing I did notice is a bit of age discrimination though.
That hasn't been my experience. Although I'm sure it does happen.
But what I've seen is exactly the opposite. It's almost like a meme now. We talk about people who also ran for the job that someone just got, and then the joke ultimately comes up "And if one of those was a girl, you'd be fucked". Meaning we'd hire a girl before a guy. And this isn't some weird sexual thing, it's just that we sincerely want more diversity. As to someone being gay... that's kinda hard to tell unless they put that on their resume, but I can't imagine who would do that.
The one thing I did notice is a bit of age discrimination though.
You say, that hasn't been your experience. I'm curious, where would you have noticed it? Other than if you are the actual person hiring, and have self examined if you'd not hire a woman, when would someone ever confide in you their bias? "Oh it's a good thing you don't have boobs, mate, or we wouldn't have hired you."
And you're right, I don't have "I'm gay" at the top of my resume in pink sparkle letters (though that's tempting now that I think of it), but some people could possibly guess in person, or I could reference my home life (my husband, etc) in an interview, but I was more referencing promotions within companies, once you become known as gay as an employee, it could, in some situations, limit your promotions and raises based on the prejudices of those above you. It might not have been true in any of my studios, but I had a legitimate fear to worry that it might have, so I instead stayed silent, and even outright lied a few times, just so it wouldn't hinder my career.
I am in charge of hiring (for positions that are under me), so I can safely say that I will personally show no discrimination against women. That said, I sadly haven't run across an application from a woman that I actually did want to hire. But that's 100% just their portfolio, and the fact that there are so few women applying in general, and that we only have like 3 character people in general. Maybe it's because I'm in charge of characters. But I see more women applying for environment positions.
As to the other departments, I'm telling you, it's almost a meme now. We all tell one another all the time how we wish more women would apply. Often when we hire someone new, after they get comfortable enough to joke around with the rest of us, the subject often comes up of other people who also applied for that job. The regular joke now is that, after telling him he had the best portfolio, someone throws in "And if a girl had applied, you would have been fucked". Of course, it's just a joke. But it has some truth in it.
You felt uncomfortable at a studio that had an openly gay office manager that wasn't afraid to bring his husband to company gatherings?
I don't know about this incident you described, it happened before my time there but it seems like you distort the facts to suit your needs. Like the time you mentioned how everyone in the game industry is white upper class but I knew for a fact that you worked with plenty of people that grew up poor at "the studio that shall not be named".
Also, I'm disabled and it's still generally socially acceptable to make fun of me, Especially since I fall down without warning - I remember falling down so hard I split my scalp open and being helped up by a group of laughing people, I needed 13 staples. So suggesting that I'm some sort of sheltered member of the privileged class is pretty shitty.
You felt uncomfortable at a studio that had an openly gay office manager that wasn't afraid to bring his husband to company gatherings?
I don't know about this incident you described, it happened before my time there but it seems like you distort the facts to suit your needs. Like the time you mentioned how everyone in the game industry is white upper class but I knew for a fact that you worked with plenty of people that grew up poor at "the studio that shall not be named".
I'm sure you have a quote for that, seeing as I never made that claim. (that *everyone* in the game industry is white and upper class, who is making up things to suit their argument now?) That's simply ridiculous. I have implied that the game industry as a whole is *largely* drawn from middle and upper class white households, and looking around any western studio can easily confirm my claim.
And, this goes back to privilege. Yes I felt uncomfortable there, and like I said, it might not have been reasonable, but I had no way of knowing, and you certainly don't know what it's like to have to weigh that decision in your career to lecture me on if it was a legitimate worry or not.
She admits fully that she's never read the green lantern issue she quotes in the vid.
Regurgitation. A person in a vid like this who does not bother to take the time to check their own references is obviously biased or simply lazy, because they believe that whoever they got they references from in the first place is infallible. They are also extremely damaging to their own cause.
She references multiple studies, authors, books, and research, by name even. If you go to the actual website, www.feministfrequency.com the links for each video are included.
Been there, and I found her statements even more biased and off base than the vids themselves. I quoted her site directly at the end of my long post where I address her statements in the video.
There is a huge difference between citing references, copy/pasting them onto your website or youtube channel, and actually reading, understanding, and making sure your references are actually what you purport them to be.
Conversely, we have in this thread, men who have never even given a passing thought to these subjects, that within 5 minutes of being aware of them, come into the thread to post their thoughts at how it's all rubbish and made up her head.
How can you come to a conclusion that there are men here who've never given it a passing thought? How does one know others minds and thoughts with absolute certainty?
I've seen a lot of posts saying that disparity in treatment of females vs males does exist, but that these very same people find the woman's methods and attitude offensive and biased. Maybe I didn't read every single post myself. But I didn't see any posts that said -"all rubbish and made up her head." "No such thing as discrimination. Never."
People (who were male) actually did say that the original author was just angry and reactionary. How is that insulting? it's a fact, I can go back and quote them for you. If it was worded in such a way that you think I was implying *all* men, then I apologize. I did not mean it that way
I didn't see you implying "all men". What you DID say, was:
It's a great watch but I'm sure several of you (men of course, curious the women of the thread have expressed agreement) will accuse her too of being angry and reactionary.
Which implies that only men are the only ones who would react negatively. You saw no women react negatively, thus anyone who reacts negatively is automatically male, meaning anyone who reacts negatively is obviously a chauvinist, and is incapable of being objective.
You state that you are sure that several of the people commenting will accuse her of being angry and reactionary as well, cementing the idea that anyone who claims that the first women is simply an angry reactionary are simply biased against women. Do you not realize how sexist this statement is?
One thing bothered me about the Mystical Pregnancy she hammers Startrek Next generation for quite a while, but I believe it is normally one of the least sexiest, anti-racist, pro-equality show out there. I wish she spent more time pointing out when shows do stuff right.
She admits fully that she's never read the green lantern issue she quotes in the vid.
There is a huge difference between citing references, copy/pasting them onto your website or youtube channel, and actually reading, understanding, and making sure your references are actually what you purport them to be.
Which implies that only men are the only ones who would react negatively. You saw no women react negatively, thus anyone who reacts negatively is automatically male, meaning anyone who reacts negatively is obviously a chauvinist, and is incapable of being objective.
You state that you are sure that several of the people commenting will accuse her of being angry and reactionary as well, cementing the idea that anyone who claims that the first women is simply an angry reactionary are simply biased against women. Do you not realize how sexist this statement is?
You're right, and I apologize for the implication. (that anyone who disagrees is a chauvinist)
As for the Big Barda, I see how her not reading the entirety of the source material lead her to using an inaccurate example, but I disagree that her points are largely poorly drawn or un referenced examples shoe horned in to make a point. It feels like you and several others try to find a single angle where it's wrong, and then use that as leverage to imply the entire trope is without merit.
People (who were male) actually did say that the original author was just angry and reactionary. How is that insulting? it's a fact, I can go back and quote them for you.
I'd actually like you to do this, if you wouldn't mind. I just searched every page, and the only person who has used the word reactionary from what I can tell, is you. The only time the word shows up in another post is when they're quoting you.
Every other post I can find might make mention of her having an axe to grind (truth), but usually also says something about agreeing that the underlying issue is there (though perhaps is not being represented as well as it could be in these videos, due to a near complete lack of discussion about viable alternatives and examples that exist, combined with some contradictory points such as the Big Barda thing).
Ok, sorry I misremembered, it was "sensationalist and angry" not reactionary. And "axe to grind" also implies anger or being reactionary, even if not stated directly.
Well I did watch two of her videos in their fullest, and in both cases she was being sensationalist, not making much point besides repeating herself over and over again, and ending up all angry and disrespectful all by herself. It just doesn't make me want to watch any more of these - just a matter of taste!
Ah, I see. Well it's definitely true that people did say that, and mention she had an axe to grind. But I don't think it's accurate to say that they said she was just angry and reactionary (sensationalist, what have you) and left it at that. There's pretty much always been another paragraph acknowledging that the problems and points as a whole are legitimate.
I just find that these videos are not the best representation of those points. If each of these videos had another half, showing great examples of viable alternatives that have turned out great I think they'd be helping to resolve the problem a lot more.
Oh, also, this was not in this thread but Earthquake seems to want it all in this one, so I'll respond to it here:
I promise you, if you are a man, you will never fully understand the perspective of a woman. Thinking that you do, or that women experience the world exactly how you do, is called "male privilege" and this thread is full of it.
This feels sexist in and of itself, honestly. I think you're making things too black and white, again focusing only on gender. And since there's no way to prove it definitively, I think it's a silly statement to make to begin with.
I don't think that women experience the world exactly as I do, nor do I think that I necessarily understand the world from every woman's perspective. I do not think the world simply has two points of view, "male" and "female". I don't think every woman has the same experiences, I don't think every man does either.
That being said, I do not think that because I'm packing man parts and my wife isn't, that we could not understand the world through eachothers eyes. I think sometimes, she may understand me better than I understand myself, and vice versa. I think girls are perfectly capable of seeing the world through a man's eyes, hell I think some men experience the world in the same way as some women - and vice versa. Just depends on the person.
And that's the point, it depends on the PERSON, not the gender. Once we start viewing eachother as people rather than guy, girl, black, white, gay, straight, or crazyinbetweenthemall - then we're on the right track. But to simply throw your arms up in the air and say "There's no way I could really, fully understand things from your perspective because we're not the same gender", well that to me encourages one of two mentalities: Either "Why even try if it's not possible", or "I don't think it's possible so I'll take your word for it." Neither of which is productive.
To me, the right mentality to have is simply to acknowledge that other people will have lived very different lives from you, and to try and take that into consideration. Whether or not they do that successfully I'm sure just depends on the individual.
Here are a couple videos that I'd like people who think that women are the only ones who get the short end of the stick to watch.
I don't stand behind any of these people or their overall views, as I simply don't know who they are, but their points and examples in these specific videos are inescapable.
*edited out for reasons of inflamatory jackass dude*.
I'd also like to address the "straw" feminist attitude purported by the womans earlier video. The woman purports that the main stream media, conservatives(like Rush Limbaugh) and religious people are the only reason that the term "femi-nazi" exist, and that there is no such thing as extreme feminists.
I Know a woman(one of my closest friends), who happens to be Pagan, with a bit of a bi-sexual slant(she had a girlfriend in highschool), liberal, non-conservative, attending college,(so obviously not someone who listens to Rush Limbaugh) who on an almost daily basis has to deal with what she herself refers to as "Femi-nazis." Now, I personally try to stay away from inflamatory name calling, but I don't have to deal with these people in my daily life.
She would disagree completely. She uses the term, simply because, it's the only term out there that she can grab onto that describes the extremism of this particular type of feminists.
She has to deal with them yelling at her, and telling her that things she does are responsible for all womens "enslavement to male needs". What things? Things like, wearing makeup or pantyhose. She recently had one of these feminist zealots flip out and belittle her, simply because she had a button on her backpack of an anime character with the word "Boobies!!" on it. (This was a gag gift given to her by friends as a joke, because she's 5 ft with DD breasts.) This was a classmate in a college. Which, btw, is where she runs into most of these people.
She, as a comic book reader, would agree that the WIR trope does exist. So to those of you who don't understand that there really are feminist zealots out there? Perhaps you simply aren't, or don't know, the kind of person that gets attacked by them.
So to those of you who don't understand that there really are feminist zealots out there? Perhaps you simply aren't, or don't know, the kind of person that gets attacked by them.
Of course there are extremists out there of all stripes. The straw feminist trope addresses the idea that *all* feminists or anyone professing any interest in feminism is a femminazi, which is absurd. Obviously it's at times useful to turn real life people into characatures for a laugh, but how often do you see reasonable feminists depicted in movies, comics, cartoons, and videogames?
This is yet another example where an extremely wide spread problem (inequality between genders) is muddled by a "what about the mens?" or "I know a radical man hater" as if a few select outliers completely debunk the larger problem. Of course there are times men lose out in society, or women win, outliers can be found in any scenario. Does Barack Obama being President of the US prove that racism and discrimination against people of color no longer exist?
I don't stand behind any of these people or their overall views, as I simply don't know who they are, but their points and examples in these specific videos are inescapable.
This is a fairly short vid with a guy commenting on the subject. His language is a bit uncapped and may be offensive to some. He has points that are inescapable. You can't ignore them, or refute them, or hand wave them away. I'd like to see someone try.
Lol at "inescapable". He finds a singular example of women laughing at a man having his penis mutilated. Let me go google "punch in the boobs" and see how many comics we come up with. Or shit, we can just look at Kanye's latest video that depicts dismembered women in a provocative and sexual manner. Or the violent Hentai games or comics with mutilated women. Was it insensitive and wrong for what's her name to joke about the guy's penis being mutilated? yes. Does it somehow prove that men have it *exactly* as bad as women. hahaha, fucking no.
The difference being when he gets angry and spits at the camera, you go "fucking-A, dude! yeah!" and when Anita Sarkeesian (the host of femfreq) gives completely reasonable points, she's accused of being angry. The difference in their demeanor is striking, the guy is practicing spitting at the camera, angrily yelling, whereas she indicates annoyance and slight raises in her voice a few times. Ridiculous.
And his points were 500 billion times more poorly put and off the cuff than the original videos by feminist frequency. This guy is ranting on a path, clearly with an axe to grind, being sensationalist, and references exactly zero research, showing only singular youtube clips from one modern show. This does not indicate a pattern or wide spread problem.
because I'm packing man parts and my wife isn't, that we could not understand the world through eachothers eyes. I think sometimes, she may understand me better than I understand myself, and vice versa. I think girls are perfectly capable of seeing the world through a man's eyes, hell I think some men experience the world in the same way as some women - and vice versa. Just depends on the person.
That's not the issue. Women have fundamentally different experiences in society -- unless everyone around you was convinced you were a woman from the age of 4-25, you probably can NEVER KNOW WHAT IT WAS LIKE.
That's basic goddamn reasoning. Whether not knowing what that experience was like is significant or not is up for debate -- but what Ben is saying is that if you haven't experienced the life a woman uniquely has in society then you cannot say you know what it is like. Do you seriously have no sister or daughter or mother or wife to ask whether gradeschool and highschool and looking for her first job went exactly like your experience? Whether men treat her exactly the same way? This isnt even about sexism, it would be different even in a society with utopian gender equality.
And yes, before you quibble on this point, of course EVERYONE'S lives are unique, but certain large demographics share unique factors.
Edit: also this reverse sexism is stuff is fucking bullshit, he should be ashamed of himself for being so self absorbed and closed minded that he thinks individual, isolated bad experiences he has are equivalent to a long standing societal problem.
Successful, powerful women with whom we do not agree with and do not identify with are called (with absolute conviction) 'Mindless chattering cunts'? That's disgusting. It's only sexism if it is discrimination -- an inappropriate joke is not in and of itself sexist. And the issue he chose to harp on is pretty horrifying; is he really so unaware that he does not understand how many women are injured and killed in domestic disputes every year? He's right that the sword cuts both ways, but it cuts about a thousand times stronger to women.
Sorry, Didn't think that polycount of all places would not be able to see past someone who used language.
Also: Please read before you respond. You keep insinuating views into my arguments that simply do not exist.
The difference being when he gets angry and spits at the camera, you go "fucking-A, dude! yeah!"
Wait, what? Where did I say that? I specifically warned about the nature of the individual(was going to put a more harsh warning, along the lines of - "this guy is kind of a jackass") which probably wouldn't have mattered.
I was going to post a little bit more in depth explanation of what point I meant to get across. Not sure it's worth it with all the attitudes.
I never should have posted that first vid. I really didn't like the guy, or his language. I was going to preface it a little more harshly, (don't watch this guy if you can't see past his attitude or language.)
Not sure that would have done much good. It was a very poor choice for that reason alone, in retrospect. Posting videos from youtube was probably a poor choice in general, without laying out exactly what I agreed with or disagreed with in minute detail.
Not sure you're really reading or digesting anything any more though.
I'd love to continue a discussion with anyone who can maintain one without putting words in others mouths, and then pointing and laughing at them.
Lol at "inescapable". He finds a singular example of Was it insensitive and wrong for what's her name to joke about the guy's penis being mutilated? yes. Does it somehow prove that men have it *exactly* as bad as women. hahaha, fucking no.
Why the need to LOL and HAHAHA at me? Even though I never said any of this.
I've also taken the video with the jackass down, I don't really know why I had it up there in the first place, I believe I thought it was shorter. Feel free to link it to anyone in private, I'm not trying to hide from my mistake. And to anyone who does watch it, I disagree with his language, and attitude. Pretty much everything that the guy Does, I disagree with. If you do watch it, watch the clips and see if that makes you think at all.
Also, for anyone else who want's to concoct a straw man to burn me down with please read and digest. Here's what I prefaced my entire post with:
I'd like people who think that women are the only ones who get the short end of the stick to watch.
Here's what I prefaced my entire post with:
I'd like people who think that women are the only ones who get the short end of the stick to watch.
This is why I accused you of not having researched this kind of stuff, because it is absolutely beginner, 101 level feminist theory that whenever any item of gender inequality comes up, men will attempt to derail the point with a "what about men!". This was a discussion about tropes in videogames depicting women poorly. Why does every single thread have to discuss men? Literally every other thread in GD is about men by virtue of the high male ratio of polycount. Men are not under represented, they have had their own stories told a million different ways. In fact, the majority of ways in which men 'lose out' in modern society would be eliminated if the larger ways women lose out is addressed. (for a loose example, more sex positivism, and the elimination of the idea of 'sluts' would also remove the idea of men with zero or few sex partners being 'losers')
It is perfectly ok to have a thread that discusses *only* the ways in which women are portrayed poorly in popular culture and media, purely because of the inequality and frequency in which it occurs. If you want to make a thread about negative and harmful male stereotypes in games, by all means do it, and I will gladly join in, speak only of my maleness and how I interact with society, and never once mention women or their problems.
But when someone tries to bring up "what about the mens!" in a discussion about women and their negative depictions, it is just an attempt to derail and make the issues seem equal in their frequency. It is objectively not equal. We have pay scales, gender ratios in studios, and the actual number of male vs female leads in games that prove absolutely that men are better represented in games/movies/comics.
But when someone tries to bring up "what about the mens!" in a discussion about women and their negative depictions, it is just an attempt to derail and make the issues seem equal in their frequency. It is objectively not equal.
Here again, you are using your own bias and assumptions to create a straw man to and tell me what I am saying and arguing.
Here again, you are using your own bias and assumptions to create a straw man to and tell me what I am saying and arguing.
Could you clarify this? I'm not near as invested in this and i still read your post as saying 'but what about the men?';
ie:
Also, for anyone else who want's to concoct a straw man to burn me down with please read and digest. Here's what I prefaced my entire post with:
I'd like people who think that women are the only ones who get the short end of the stick to watch.
Women ARE the only ones who get the short end of the stick -- the short end of the stick is widespread societal discrimination. Both sides have some discomfort, but one is SIGNIFICANTLY better off.
Women ARE the only ones who get the short end of the stick -- the short end of the stick is widespread societal discrimination. Both sides have some discomfort, but one is SIGNIFICANTLY better off.
I don't really want to get into the conversation, mainly because I don't feel like arguing and also because I don't have a strong opinion about the subject, but I wanted to say that the video that Ikosan posted is quite interesting. Her points are well articulated and she appears to reference actual scientific research. Whether her sources are all valid or not can be questioned, but I had just enough time to find some of the interesting examples that she mentions. One of them is the study of male and female work fatalities. (pages 6 and 7)
Now by no means I wish to say that I support all of her points. In her other videos she speaks of the apocalyptic scenario that may be caused by the feminist movement and how it may lead to an economic collapse; which to me sounds like a huge stretch. But, she offers a perspective that I have never really considered before. And since she is a woman, it essentially eliminates (at least to some extent, as some could argue that her thinking is an effect of the male society) the male bias that could be attributed to her arguments. In all honesty, I find the idea of "men's rights" organisation quite silly as my firm philosophy is to deal with anything that life throws at you. However, I was surprised with how strong some of her arguments are, or in the very least, appear to be.
Now it's time for me to go back to work, so I'm out. Just wanted to say that I always enjoy reading those kinds of discussions, regardless of what my own opinion on the subject is. In this case, it's pretty much null as my knowladge about the topic is less than shallow.
Women ARE the only ones who get the short end of the stick -- the short end of the stick is widespread societal discrimination. Both sides have some discomfort, but one is SIGNIFICANTLY better off.
It is true, but the result is that feminists are quick to chop off everything thar resembles a stick in any way.
Any small issue that might be harmless creations of someones personal experience, like a heterosexual man creating a male-centered story where the female partner ends up in a fridge, which really only is the result of the creators own personal experiences and the fear of losing close ones.
Or the classical prince saves princess, which comes close to being verboten and removed as a quest to enforce equality with new childrens books being rewritten in weird ways.
I dunno about ben, but I VERY much agree with you eld -- that shit is crazy. I encounter it all the time, and I think it's partially espoused in these videos, and it's damn loony. But let's not use it to discredit the whole argument -- What you're describing is a small, MOSTLY harmless problem that should not be used to distract from the very real social issues.
i'm sorry if this thread is specifically about videogame gender studies, but here's a recent speech about the issue of congruity in the game industry that I found interesting.
Replies
If a male hero goes on a quest to revenge the pointless death of his wife it's chauvinistic because the female character got killed soley for the purpose of driving the story.
If a female heroin goes on a quest to revenge the pointless death of her husband it's chauvinistic because the only reason she has to go on that quest is her husband's death? (And this story would also fail the Bechtel Test because she always talks about stuff related to her husband...)
Yes to both. She has another video on True Grit, and explains that while it's great the central character is an actress, and a young one at that, she's basically written as a male character, but cast as a woman. It fails the Bechdel test and she isn't a very feminist character, showing neither growth (she's the same character from first scene to last) as well as being written full of typical male characteristics.
So yes, it's possible to write/have/script to seemingly opposite situations, where both are highly sexist. It's also possible to have both situations without it being sexist. The death of a wife could be motivator, but then all other treatments of the wife (reminiscing plus flashbacks, interactions with women in the actual story, etc, could all be done well with the women portrayed with full agency, and names! Same with the 2nd scenario, the dead husband could be the impetus, but as long as the female character still has a full personality, and isn't just a robot drone trying to fulfill the will of the husband (revenge) she can be portrayed as a full person.
She most likely has other things to say, but a huge part of the enjoyment of enlightenment coming from a conversation is how well articulated a point is. After having the pleasure of talking with a very respectful and intelligent women rights activist in real life, the girl from these videos seemed angry and annoying in comparaison, and that just doesn't make me want to watch more ...
Again, no one here is disagreeing with the fact that women are overly objectified in the media, and that this can have bad consequences because of uneducated idiot males douchebags. As a matter of fact, I find it just as annoying when I see a picture of a naked David Beckham suggestively framed juuuuuuuuuust above his penis in order to sell a freaking bottle of cologne at the store. Both are stupid! We get that. But if she makes a video about that ... then it's fair to expect more from just stating examples and getting angry. Also, since it is an edited video and not a casual conversation recorded "live", it is her duty to edit and revision it when she realizes that some of her points don't make any sense ("Picasso makes me puke, he was inspired by women!)...
so, being a flat (or consistent) character is something specifically male or sexist? having male characteristics isn't allowed for a girl? should she follow the stereotypes or not? this sounds contradictary to me.
I don't know... I do understand the criticism to a certain degree, but then again, I want to cater my stories to a certain audience and I write a story for that specific audience and tell everyone else to "like it or not". I don't see much sexism in most of these stories, as (in my example in the post above) you could most of the time replace characters at random and they would still work. Reading sexism, racism etc. into those stories because they don't feature a certain person as the main actor or even exclusively is a bit holier-than-thou. Much like in the Morgan Freeman video about Black-History-Month, the ever pointing out what gender or race some one is, could well be more segregating. A lot of women I know don't care about the genders in any movie and can relate to male and female roles just as much.
Woah woah - going to have to watch this video because I very much disagree with that. In True Grit she isn't a very feminine character, but that's because she's a product of her environment. Living in a harsh western town, where death is common, and women are relegated to household roles and must act proper. Her rebellion against this is to take up the role of a man in this environment, for her own ends. - but this is very grounded in the time and setting of the film. There was very little of anything that you could call 'counter culture' and very few female role models breaking the mold. Probably none in small town western america in that time. There is definitely growth in her character and I feel like true grit is a terrible example.
To me this is like the people who complain that "As is typical of fantasy films, there are no black or minority characters in the new Pixar film, 'Brave"! NO SHIT there are no black dudes in 11th century SCOTLAND.
The Beschdel test is a great measuring rod, but it is not one size fits all.
Right, but there were also no dragons or magic or talking animals in 11th century scotland. Pixar could easily write in a character of color and the only people it would upset would be the racists, it would in no way ruin the movie on narrative alone.
And she says exactly what you did about the Bechdel test, it does not ensure a feminist movie as trash like Sucker Punch passes the test, but amazing movies like Moon and Up fail. It's merely a tool that when applied across numerous titles, can be used to show a pattern that there are far FAR fewer named female characters with fully written personalities than there are male ones, which is problematic when actual society is 50/50 men/women.
You should watch it though. I agree (with her) the character showed little growth. She was basically already a full confident, nothing phases her, person in the first scene. This isn't something I'll defend though, because again, I'm a man, and this is more of a subjective point as to whether she is portrayed as largely masculine or feminine.
Men are victims of this degrading sexism as well, but it's far more damaging to women. That's why feminism is about equality, it's not about women only. If the damaging aspects toward women are fixed, it will benefit men as well.
[ame="
The attraction to the female body is not going to go away anytime soon, and deep inside the reptile brain we'll be objectifying bodies wherever we go, but much like everything else that is bad but essentially a core of what it is to be human, we don't let it get to us. People are people.
We reach equality by objectifying both sexes, just look at the recent bioware games, where we have the ideal man or woman for the player.
Personally I'm fine with that, I enjoy experiencing things, I like murdering people in games, I like seeing attractive people, but I don't find any joy in treating any person any less than human, because I was raised and grew up with those standards.
Isn't this fundamentally an issue that starts at how someone is raised or what experiences he/she gains? Removing any "sexism" in games, movies or ads will not make the reptile brain go away, people were way beyond sexist back in the olde days.
Upon reading that I can't help but think that is true, you rarely say something i dont agree with eld
Feminist Frequency's argument is that men are trying to keep women down. Kilbourne's argument is that the media aren't depicting people responsibly. Those are way different, and it's only the first one I have issues with.
What is a shame is that Jean Kilbourne only shortly mentions the depiction of men in media. It's partially the same problem as with women, namely that the media act irresponsibly and give a false and undesirable sense of normalcy; in this case that males ought to be violent. But I think it's just as big a problem. Recall the video about Lego you posted in the Kara thread; the genders got divided and girls ended up with 'Friendship' and boys with several lines focusing on battling. Which of the two ended up with the less respectful treatment?
I think the issue here is that we think we have to REACH a certain point or intellectual agreement. We don't, we just have drop the act, but that's nearly impossible, nowadays.
Sex is the major theme in Ads these days. So just like these ads are making people into shop-aholics, so then, equally they turn people into sex-aholics (both sexes becoming the prey, if you will).
So the issue then becomes more intricate, when it's complicated (both preys blaming each other) rather than simplifying it.
Sex is equal to drugs these days. It's hard to kick, as a desire.
Sex is best when it happens by itself (with you and your partner) not when one asks the other.
True, but we think that because we're seeing it from a man's perspective. Couldn't you say the exact same thing if you were a woman? That the chainmail-bikini elf is there to look like a badass woman because that's who you (as a woman) want to be when you save the world, and the half-naked ripped badass man is just eye-candy?
I think the bottom line is, everyone wants to look hot while kicking ass. I don't see why this would be different for women.
point is: men are just as much targeted by "you have to look like this" or "you have to own this". and women will always compare men to advertisment figures just the same. it only becomes a problem if a) you can only see other people in comparison to advertisment or b) you can't get over your self not looking like one of the poster-kids. both is not a systematic failure, it's ones own individual upbringing that will change that - male or female.
I think there was something said along those lines in one of the gamesindustry mentor things? I cant remember.
But the problem with that line of thought bigjohn is that youre still inside the box with that comment, youre not questioning the definition of "hot". Not that i'm going to argue that being a fat slob is attractive...
as a straight man i have to realistically say and admit i have no problem with half naked women being plastered everywhere, and i never will. never. maybe if i have a daughter, but unless its her i probably still wont. I also don't care if men are naked selling something, as an artist i actually find the male form more interesting but that's another topic. it's not the point. the point is i see a bunch of men getting all up in arms about a topic i KNOW they don't give one shit about only because they think they are being made out as the bad guy. look, its not about men doing and feeling the things men do being bad, wrong or unnatural. its about equality , fairness, and respect.
please stop pretending you have anything worth while to say about woman's rights and issues, you don't. you have no say at all at what you personally think they should feel, that's the problem. they don't need to chill out, or just accept it. I didn't choose to be a straight white male, i just was and for me to believe i don't have it better, or have an advantage over every other demographic of human is ignorant.
but no one likes the finger pointed at them, even the privileged. i have to realize that even if i don't care about woman's rights, doesn't mean they are not entitled to them, and that if women were treated fairly it would not change my life at all. all my favorite movies would still be my favorite movies, all my favorite restaurants, it doesn't threaten my life at all. so whats the problem with it? whats the opposition? seems like the most that will change in mens lives if women were treated equally is that there would be less women calling men pigs and assholes, and that seems to be the real problem men are having with any of this.
Basically, my question is, what is the solution for the problem? Is it for men to start writing better roles for women in movies (I sincerely think there are a lot of people trying but according to her still getting it wrong), or for men and women to encourage more women to get involved in media, or something else entirely?
On a side note, I read an article written by a straight man a while back in response to a Huggies ad about being a stay at home dad and how that role is still stereotyped and seen as weak, inferior, etc. by the media and the general public.
Obviously it's one thing to notice a glaring problem, and another to have a good solution. I can see this glaring problem, but I don't know enough about psychology or sociology to claim a perfect answer. I do think you hit the nail on the head at the end. Guys need to start being more aware of the content they create, currently holding the majority of creative positions in advertisments/movies/comics/games/magazines and that should naturally result in a more friendly atmosphere for women to go into and succeed in these fields.
Sorry Poop, I'm not sure how attitudes like this are anything other than biased and damaging in and of themselves.
You seem to be inferring that anyone who reacted negatively to a woman who makes obvious assumptions and touts examples that in reality work against her(read the Big Barda "Death of the New Gods" comic.)
You also seem to be indicating that you know that the only negative reactions were male, and thereby imply that there are no females that would react negatively in the same manner. I know women who would "puke"(to use the woman in the vids terms) at the statements this woman makes, and her lack of interest in taking the small amount of effort it takes double check her own references.
Why is it that a woman this passionate about her cause can't actually research and provide actual examples that she herself has even bothered to read? Why is it that this doesn't bother you? I react negatively to anyone who claims to be a proponent of some type of change, claiming to be "in the know" about important issues, while simultaneously insulting another group, and yet simply makes videos while parroting things she hasn't bothered to double check.
Why shouldn't we expect people to react negatively to someone who takes the time to stand behind an issue with such ferocity, yet who doesn't bother to take the time to even understand the very reference she cites?
I do find it interesting that your reaction to others reactions, seems to be right in line with the woman's video you first posted. Basically sounds like- "If you don't see it exactly the way I do, you're probably a chauvinist, and likely part of the problem." "Women are the only ones who don't react negatively."
I haven't really noticed anyone in this thread stating that there are no problems in society or media that negatively effect women. Simply many who see that this one woman happens to have an inability to speak in an unbiased, and sexist manner herself.
Also wanted to say that just in case of misunderstanding, I never meant any of my words in my rant to be an attack on you, or anyone else personally, my responses were solely directed at responding to the statements in the vid. I'm pretty sure that I kept it impersonal, but just in case.
Maybe you've worked at more egalitarian companies than me, but I can remember highly restrictive atmospheres at every company I've worked at toward women. I didn't even feel comfortable being openly gay at any of my past game studios till CCP for fear of being restricted out of the boys club where good reputation and promotions/raises come from.
In fact I can remember a specific company that you and I both worked at that shall go unnamed where a very talented female character artist was practically shut out of any meaningful meetings or decision making purely because she was female. Language that left no room for any confusion as to why, was used. Her gender in specific was referenced.
I can believe you've never noticed it (and why would you, as a man you'd never face it) but to suggest there is no restrictions toward women in game hiring is simply absurd.
Just think of it this way. I've personally fucked several male polycounters but I'll never have someone mentally thinking my career, salary or position (till maybe this admission) was related to my sexuality or appearance. The reverse is self-evidently false. Any attractive woman is naturally assumed to have at the very least flirted her way into the hire, if not outright slept into it. Even when capable, they are considered "very good... for a girl" etc etc. Maybe not consciously, but women are absolutely treated differently by their male co-workers, including raises and hires.
What are you talking about? She references multiple studies, authors, books, and research, by name even. If you go to the actual website, www.feministfrequency.com the links for each video are included.
Conversely, we have in this thread, men who have never even given a passing thought to these subjects, that within 5 minutes of being aware of them, come into the thread to post their thoughts at how it's all rubbish and made up her head.
Feminist theory is an actual field. Women (and men) have spent their entire lives researching these subjects. That women are treated differently and most often more negatively than men in popular culture is simply inarguable, with mountains of research behind it. I'm not going to claim everything she's said is 100% right, but she has far more legitimate points than the majority of people in this thread are giving credit for, who are largely handwaving it all away.
People (who were male) actually did say that the original author was just angry and reactionary. How is that insulting? it's a fact, I can go back and quote them for you. If it was worded in such a way that you think I was implying *all* men, then I apologize. I did not mean it that way.
But what I've seen is exactly the opposite. It's almost like a meme now. We talk about people who also ran for the job that someone just got, and then the joke ultimately comes up "And if one of those was a girl, you'd be fucked". Meaning we'd hire a girl before a guy. And this isn't some weird sexual thing, it's just that we sincerely want more diversity. As to someone being gay... that's kinda hard to tell unless they put that on their resume, but I can't imagine who would do that.
The one thing I did notice is a bit of age discrimination though.
You say, that hasn't been your experience. I'm curious, where would you have noticed it? Other than if you are the actual person hiring, and have self examined if you'd not hire a woman, when would someone ever confide in you their bias? "Oh it's a good thing you don't have boobs, mate, or we wouldn't have hired you."
And you're right, I don't have "I'm gay" at the top of my resume in pink sparkle letters (though that's tempting now that I think of it), but some people could possibly guess in person, or I could reference my home life (my husband, etc) in an interview, but I was more referencing promotions within companies, once you become known as gay as an employee, it could, in some situations, limit your promotions and raises based on the prejudices of those above you. It might not have been true in any of my studios, but I had a legitimate fear to worry that it might have, so I instead stayed silent, and even outright lied a few times, just so it wouldn't hinder my career.
As to the other departments, I'm telling you, it's almost a meme now. We all tell one another all the time how we wish more women would apply. Often when we hire someone new, after they get comfortable enough to joke around with the rest of us, the subject often comes up of other people who also applied for that job. The regular joke now is that, after telling him he had the best portfolio, someone throws in "And if a girl had applied, you would have been fucked". Of course, it's just a joke. But it has some truth in it.
I don't know about this incident you described, it happened before my time there but it seems like you distort the facts to suit your needs. Like the time you mentioned how everyone in the game industry is white upper class but I knew for a fact that you worked with plenty of people that grew up poor at "the studio that shall not be named".
Also, I'm disabled and it's still generally socially acceptable to make fun of me, Especially since I fall down without warning - I remember falling down so hard I split my scalp open and being helped up by a group of laughing people, I needed 13 staples. So suggesting that I'm some sort of sheltered member of the privileged class is pretty shitty.
I'm sure you have a quote for that, seeing as I never made that claim. (that *everyone* in the game industry is white and upper class, who is making up things to suit their argument now?) That's simply ridiculous. I have implied that the game industry as a whole is *largely* drawn from middle and upper class white households, and looking around any western studio can easily confirm my claim.
And, this goes back to privilege. Yes I felt uncomfortable there, and like I said, it might not have been reasonable, but I had no way of knowing, and you certainly don't know what it's like to have to weigh that decision in your career to lecture me on if it was a legitimate worry or not.
My post here describes it with actual pages from the comic, but everyone should read it themselves. http://www.polycount.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1540538&postcount=34
She admits fully that she's never read the green lantern issue she quotes in the vid.
Regurgitation. A person in a vid like this who does not bother to take the time to check their own references is obviously biased or simply lazy, because they believe that whoever they got they references from in the first place is infallible. They are also extremely damaging to their own cause.
Been there, and I found her statements even more biased and off base than the vids themselves. I quoted her site directly at the end of my long post where I address her statements in the video.
There is a huge difference between citing references, copy/pasting them onto your website or youtube channel, and actually reading, understanding, and making sure your references are actually what you purport them to be.
How can you come to a conclusion that there are men here who've never given it a passing thought? How does one know others minds and thoughts with absolute certainty?
I've seen a lot of posts saying that disparity in treatment of females vs males does exist, but that these very same people find the woman's methods and attitude offensive and biased. Maybe I didn't read every single post myself. But I didn't see any posts that said -"all rubbish and made up her head." "No such thing as discrimination. Never."
I didn't see you implying "all men". What you DID say, was:
Which implies that only men are the only ones who would react negatively. You saw no women react negatively, thus anyone who reacts negatively is automatically male, meaning anyone who reacts negatively is obviously a chauvinist, and is incapable of being objective.
You state that you are sure that several of the people commenting will accuse her of being angry and reactionary as well, cementing the idea that anyone who claims that the first women is simply an angry reactionary are simply biased against women. Do you not realize how sexist this statement is?
You're right, and I apologize for the implication. (that anyone who disagrees is a chauvinist)
As for the Big Barda, I see how her not reading the entirety of the source material lead her to using an inaccurate example, but I disagree that her points are largely poorly drawn or un referenced examples shoe horned in to make a point. It feels like you and several others try to find a single angle where it's wrong, and then use that as leverage to imply the entire trope is without merit.
I'd actually like you to do this, if you wouldn't mind. I just searched every page, and the only person who has used the word reactionary from what I can tell, is you. The only time the word shows up in another post is when they're quoting you.
Every other post I can find might make mention of her having an axe to grind (truth), but usually also says something about agreeing that the underlying issue is there (though perhaps is not being represented as well as it could be in these videos, due to a near complete lack of discussion about viable alternatives and examples that exist, combined with some contradictory points such as the Big Barda thing).
I just find that these videos are not the best representation of those points. If each of these videos had another half, showing great examples of viable alternatives that have turned out great I think they'd be helping to resolve the problem a lot more.
Oh, also, this was not in this thread but Earthquake seems to want it all in this one, so I'll respond to it here:
This feels sexist in and of itself, honestly. I think you're making things too black and white, again focusing only on gender. And since there's no way to prove it definitively, I think it's a silly statement to make to begin with.
I don't think that women experience the world exactly as I do, nor do I think that I necessarily understand the world from every woman's perspective. I do not think the world simply has two points of view, "male" and "female". I don't think every woman has the same experiences, I don't think every man does either.
That being said, I do not think that because I'm packing man parts and my wife isn't, that we could not understand the world through eachothers eyes. I think sometimes, she may understand me better than I understand myself, and vice versa. I think girls are perfectly capable of seeing the world through a man's eyes, hell I think some men experience the world in the same way as some women - and vice versa. Just depends on the person.
And that's the point, it depends on the PERSON, not the gender. Once we start viewing eachother as people rather than guy, girl, black, white, gay, straight, or crazyinbetweenthemall - then we're on the right track. But to simply throw your arms up in the air and say "There's no way I could really, fully understand things from your perspective because we're not the same gender", well that to me encourages one of two mentalities: Either "Why even try if it's not possible", or "I don't think it's possible so I'll take your word for it." Neither of which is productive.
To me, the right mentality to have is simply to acknowledge that other people will have lived very different lives from you, and to try and take that into consideration. Whether or not they do that successfully I'm sure just depends on the individual.
I don't stand behind any of these people or their overall views, as I simply don't know who they are, but their points and examples in these specific videos are inescapable.
*edited out for reasons of inflamatory jackass dude*.
This one covers the same issue with examples in movies.
[ame="
I'd also like to address the "straw" feminist attitude purported by the womans earlier video. The woman purports that the main stream media, conservatives(like Rush Limbaugh) and religious people are the only reason that the term "femi-nazi" exist, and that there is no such thing as extreme feminists.
I Know a woman(one of my closest friends), who happens to be Pagan, with a bit of a bi-sexual slant(she had a girlfriend in highschool), liberal, non-conservative, attending college,(so obviously not someone who listens to Rush Limbaugh) who on an almost daily basis has to deal with what she herself refers to as "Femi-nazis." Now, I personally try to stay away from inflamatory name calling, but I don't have to deal with these people in my daily life.
She would disagree completely. She uses the term, simply because, it's the only term out there that she can grab onto that describes the extremism of this particular type of feminists.
She has to deal with them yelling at her, and telling her that things she does are responsible for all womens "enslavement to male needs". What things? Things like, wearing makeup or pantyhose. She recently had one of these feminist zealots flip out and belittle her, simply because she had a button on her backpack of an anime character with the word "Boobies!!" on it. (This was a gag gift given to her by friends as a joke, because she's 5 ft with DD breasts.) This was a classmate in a college. Which, btw, is where she runs into most of these people.
She, as a comic book reader, would agree that the WIR trope does exist. So to those of you who don't understand that there really are feminist zealots out there? Perhaps you simply aren't, or don't know, the kind of person that gets attacked by them.
Of course there are extremists out there of all stripes. The straw feminist trope addresses the idea that *all* feminists or anyone professing any interest in feminism is a femminazi, which is absurd. Obviously it's at times useful to turn real life people into characatures for a laugh, but how often do you see reasonable feminists depicted in movies, comics, cartoons, and videogames?
This is yet another example where an extremely wide spread problem (inequality between genders) is muddled by a "what about the mens?" or "I know a radical man hater" as if a few select outliers completely debunk the larger problem. Of course there are times men lose out in society, or women win, outliers can be found in any scenario. Does Barack Obama being President of the US prove that racism and discrimination against people of color no longer exist?
Lol at "inescapable". He finds a singular example of women laughing at a man having his penis mutilated. Let me go google "punch in the boobs" and see how many comics we come up with. Or shit, we can just look at Kanye's latest video that depicts dismembered women in a provocative and sexual manner. Or the violent Hentai games or comics with mutilated women. Was it insensitive and wrong for what's her name to joke about the guy's penis being mutilated? yes. Does it somehow prove that men have it *exactly* as bad as women. hahaha, fucking no.
The difference being when he gets angry and spits at the camera, you go "fucking-A, dude! yeah!" and when Anita Sarkeesian (the host of femfreq) gives completely reasonable points, she's accused of being angry. The difference in their demeanor is striking, the guy is practicing spitting at the camera, angrily yelling, whereas she indicates annoyance and slight raises in her voice a few times. Ridiculous.
And his points were 500 billion times more poorly put and off the cuff than the original videos by feminist frequency. This guy is ranting on a path, clearly with an axe to grind, being sensationalist, and references exactly zero research, showing only singular youtube clips from one modern show. This does not indicate a pattern or wide spread problem.
That's not the issue. Women have fundamentally different experiences in society -- unless everyone around you was convinced you were a woman from the age of 4-25, you probably can NEVER KNOW WHAT IT WAS LIKE.
That's basic goddamn reasoning. Whether not knowing what that experience was like is significant or not is up for debate -- but what Ben is saying is that if you haven't experienced the life a woman uniquely has in society then you cannot say you know what it is like. Do you seriously have no sister or daughter or mother or wife to ask whether gradeschool and highschool and looking for her first job went exactly like your experience? Whether men treat her exactly the same way? This isnt even about sexism, it would be different even in a society with utopian gender equality.
And yes, before you quibble on this point, of course EVERYONE'S lives are unique, but certain large demographics share unique factors.
Edit: also this reverse sexism is stuff is fucking bullshit, he should be ashamed of himself for being so self absorbed and closed minded that he thinks individual, isolated bad experiences he has are equivalent to a long standing societal problem.
Successful, powerful women with whom we do not agree with and do not identify with are called (with absolute conviction) 'Mindless chattering cunts'? That's disgusting. It's only sexism if it is discrimination -- an inappropriate joke is not in and of itself sexist. And the issue he chose to harp on is pretty horrifying; is he really so unaware that he does not understand how many women are injured and killed in domestic disputes every year? He's right that the sword cuts both ways, but it cuts about a thousand times stronger to women.
Also: Please read before you respond. You keep insinuating views into my arguments that simply do not exist.
Wait, what? Where did I say that? I specifically warned about the nature of the individual(was going to put a more harsh warning, along the lines of - "this guy is kind of a jackass") which probably wouldn't have mattered.
I was going to post a little bit more in depth explanation of what point I meant to get across. Not sure it's worth it with all the attitudes.
I never should have posted that first vid. I really didn't like the guy, or his language. I was going to preface it a little more harshly, (don't watch this guy if you can't see past his attitude or language.)
Not sure that would have done much good. It was a very poor choice for that reason alone, in retrospect. Posting videos from youtube was probably a poor choice in general, without laying out exactly what I agreed with or disagreed with in minute detail.
Not sure you're really reading or digesting anything any more though.
I'd love to continue a discussion with anyone who can maintain one without putting words in others mouths, and then pointing and laughing at them.
Why the need to LOL and HAHAHA at me? Even though I never said any of this.
I've also taken the video with the jackass down, I don't really know why I had it up there in the first place, I believe I thought it was shorter. Feel free to link it to anyone in private, I'm not trying to hide from my mistake. And to anyone who does watch it, I disagree with his language, and attitude. Pretty much everything that the guy Does, I disagree with. If you do watch it, watch the clips and see if that makes you think at all.
Also, for anyone else who want's to concoct a straw man to burn me down with please read and digest. Here's what I prefaced my entire post with:
I'd like people who think that women are the only ones who get the short end of the stick to watch.
This is why I accused you of not having researched this kind of stuff, because it is absolutely beginner, 101 level feminist theory that whenever any item of gender inequality comes up, men will attempt to derail the point with a "what about men!". This was a discussion about tropes in videogames depicting women poorly. Why does every single thread have to discuss men? Literally every other thread in GD is about men by virtue of the high male ratio of polycount. Men are not under represented, they have had their own stories told a million different ways. In fact, the majority of ways in which men 'lose out' in modern society would be eliminated if the larger ways women lose out is addressed. (for a loose example, more sex positivism, and the elimination of the idea of 'sluts' would also remove the idea of men with zero or few sex partners being 'losers')
It is perfectly ok to have a thread that discusses *only* the ways in which women are portrayed poorly in popular culture and media, purely because of the inequality and frequency in which it occurs. If you want to make a thread about negative and harmful male stereotypes in games, by all means do it, and I will gladly join in, speak only of my maleness and how I interact with society, and never once mention women or their problems.
But when someone tries to bring up "what about the mens!" in a discussion about women and their negative depictions, it is just an attempt to derail and make the issues seem equal in their frequency. It is objectively not equal. We have pay scales, gender ratios in studios, and the actual number of male vs female leads in games that prove absolutely that men are better represented in games/movies/comics.
Actually, the thread is simply called "Tropes in video games". Not "Feminist tropes in video games", or "Tropes that affect females in games".
Nowhere do you state that this is a discussion only addressing female tropes in video games.
Here again, you are using your own bias and assumptions to create a straw man to and tell me what I am saying and arguing.
Could you clarify this? I'm not near as invested in this and i still read your post as saying 'but what about the men?';
ie:
Women ARE the only ones who get the short end of the stick -- the short end of the stick is widespread societal discrimination. Both sides have some discomfort, but one is SIGNIFICANTLY better off.
I don't really want to get into the conversation, mainly because I don't feel like arguing and also because I don't have a strong opinion about the subject, but I wanted to say that the video that Ikosan posted is quite interesting. Her points are well articulated and she appears to reference actual scientific research. Whether her sources are all valid or not can be questioned, but I had just enough time to find some of the interesting examples that she mentions. One of them is the study of male and female work fatalities. (pages 6 and 7)
Now by no means I wish to say that I support all of her points. In her other videos she speaks of the apocalyptic scenario that may be caused by the feminist movement and how it may lead to an economic collapse; which to me sounds like a huge stretch. But, she offers a perspective that I have never really considered before. And since she is a woman, it essentially eliminates (at least to some extent, as some could argue that her thinking is an effect of the male society) the male bias that could be attributed to her arguments. In all honesty, I find the idea of "men's rights" organisation quite silly as my firm philosophy is to deal with anything that life throws at you. However, I was surprised with how strong some of her arguments are, or in the very least, appear to be.
Now it's time for me to go back to work, so I'm out. Just wanted to say that I always enjoy reading those kinds of discussions, regardless of what my own opinion on the subject is. In this case, it's pretty much null as my knowladge about the topic is less than shallow.
It is true, but the result is that feminists are quick to chop off everything thar resembles a stick in any way.
Any small issue that might be harmless creations of someones personal experience, like a heterosexual man creating a male-centered story where the female partner ends up in a fridge, which really only is the result of the creators own personal experiences and the fear of losing close ones.
Or the classical prince saves princess, which comes close to being verboten and removed as a quest to enforce equality with new childrens books being rewritten in weird ways.
[ame="
I also recommend those interested to watch the infamous dragon speech.