next »

[Nillo]

Oh wow an anita sarkeesian thread everyone just nitpicks her examples instead of engaging the point she's making. Who would have thought?

Sexualized female character bad. Non-sexual female character good. Make more non-sexualized female character. Did I miss anything? I haven't watched the video

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

so, do I need to repeat myself that nillo only argues about human decency in bad faith, or is that obvious to everyone involved.

[Dacke]

I think it's obvious most of the regulars, but maybe not to everyone else?

[Nillo]

so, do I need to repeat myself that nillo only argues about human decency in bad faith, or is that obvious to everyone involved.

Claim the moral high ground while calling people human garbage, it's the Progressive Way (tm)

[ProgramGamer]

The point Anita makes in this video is that using female body features to produce repulsive imagery is bad because humanity has a history of doing that exact thing.

Also video games generally suck at making female enemies more inspired than a sexy spider apparently.

[s0]

i actually watched it now. i should say that i haven't always agreed with her so far, but i think this is one of her best videos, especially the point about ancient misogynistic storytelling traditions being passed off as "universal human experience" just because they're really old.

btw, this is why "the human condition" is a highly suspect term, because whenever it's invoked it's founded on assumptions that, on closer examination, turn out to be anything but "universal".

i also liked that she doesn't just go for the obvious "dudebro" examples, but also mentions games like mass effect and brothers which have a somewhat "progressive" reputation.

tl;dr: gud vid

[Dacke]

so, do I need to repeat myself that nillo only argues about human decency in bad faith, or is that obvious to everyone involved.

Claim the moral high ground while calling people human garbage, it's the Progressive Way (tm)

Uh, that was Schoq. The fact that Schoq is extremely hostile to people he dislikes is open for everyone to see. I don't like it, but it's also incredibly obvious. The fact that you're constantly arguing in bad faith and promote absolutely horrid values (like defending gamergate) is much less obvious at first glance and actually warrants poiting out.

[s0]

Oh wow an anita sarkeesian thread everyone just nitpicks her examples instead of engaging the point she's making. Who would have thought?

Sexualized female character bad. Non-sexual female character good. Make more non-sexualized female character. Did I miss anything? I haven't watched the video

what i meant was this: most critics of anita* get hung up on the details while missing the bigger picture. harping on that one time she got something wrong about hitman (yes people still bring that up) doesn't lead to any productive discourse unless you're just grasping at straws to prove her "wrong".

thing is, tropes vs women isn't about calling out individual games as sexist. the examples are just that: examples. rather, the larger implied question asked by the videos is: what does it mean that these tropes are so prevalent in our entertainment media? what does it say about our society and its treatment of women? and as videos like this one show, these tropes are pretty much used across the board, and not just limited to so called "lowest common denominator" stuff.


*like i said, i don't agree with anita on everything and i've seen some better critiques of her stuff. the one liana k wrote was pretty decent for instance, even tho i don't agree with it.

[JWK5]

Even if you don't agree with them, one thing these videos provide is a good look at common trends and themes in video games. On the creative side of things it provides a good challenge: creating in a manner that avoids these common trends and themes. It gives you a good opportunity to bring something different to the table with the added bonus of also bringing something more inclusive to the table.

I enjoy a lot of the games mentioned and even despite becoming aware of their tropes I still will enjoy them. It's like watching a movie with a good story but features terrible CGI, I can accept the bad but still enjoy the good. The tropes aren't a good thing, but they are not so terrible that they ruin games, they are just things we need to weed out as the medium moves forward.

[halk3n]

The Doom3 reference is spot on. You even make half the point: There is only one female demon and she is explicitly designed around the idea of "sexy + gross". So the only female representation plays on gross female sexuality. While none of the other enemies seem to be sexualized at all (despite your claim).

Yea, I take that back. I remembered the game having more demons that followed the Giger approach than what is actually the case (one in your above gallery). Not so. She's right.

Um, the old societies she references were incredibly sexist & patriarchal and that is reflected in the stories they told. Hardly anything controversial or revisionist about that.

Are you serious? Anita is right to scrutinize Greek mythology because it's from a fucked up history that has pervaded the collective consciousness of our civilization leading to many cultured assumptions, beliefs and fears of women in general. Especially in the west. This is true, she is right to relate this to characterizations of a particular sex in stories of video games.

Where she is blatantly wrong is her referencing the Garden of Eden. I cannot understand for the life of me why people consistently misinterpret the true message of that story due to a misapplied interpretation based on the West's influence of Greek mythology. It's very frustrating.

[Schoq]

so, do I need to repeat myself that nillo only argues about human decency in bad faith, or is that obvious to everyone involved.

Claim the moral high ground while calling people human garbage, it's the Progressive Way (tm)

wasn't it you that posted a link to someone talking about the weak man argument here at some point?

but yeah I think one road to progress is abusing and (more importantly but what can you do) robbing of power people who continue to support heinous harmful actions movements and ideas. if you were just a dumb teen or something I'd have more patience but you seriously have no excuse

just to reiterate: you're fucked up and trash

[Dacke]

Are you serious? Anita is right to scrutinize Greek mythology because it's from a fucked up history that has pervaded the collective consciousness of our civilization leading to many cultured assumptions, beliefs and fears of women in general. Especially in the west. This is true, she is right to relate this to characterizations of a particular sex in stories of video games.

Where she is blatantly wrong is her referencing the Garden of Eden. I cannot understand for the life of me why people consistently misinterpret the true message of that story due to a misapplied interpretation based on the West's influence of Greek mythology. It's very frustrating.

First you ask if I'm serious and then you concede one of the main examples?

The mythological examples given at ~4:54 are sirens, succubus and witches. Any reference to the garden of eden passed me by, what's the time stamp for that?

[s0]

she does reference it at one point when she talks about pandora. too lazy to look for the timestamp rn but it's there.

[Dacke]

oh, ok, found it at ~2:42. It's not even a direct mention, she half-jokingly hints at it as a parallel to pandora.

To get indignant about "feminist revisionism" based on that, you reaaaaally have to be nit picking trying to "prove her wrong".

But I also don't understand what in her reference about the garden of eden you think is wrong?

I can quote directly from Genesis:

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it.

[...]

To the woman [the Lord God] said,

“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

“Cursed is the ground because of you;
    through painful toil you will eat food from it
    all the days of your life.
 
It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
    and you will eat the plants of the field.
 
By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
    and to dust you will return.”

So I'm not sure how you'd interpret that other than "the woman fucked up, now things are bad and she is to be subordinate to men". Not to mention that blaming Eve for original sin has been a mainstay in Christian tradition.

Directly from that text it's also clear that we're dealing with myths from an incredibly patriarchal culture, since the quoted passage explicitly tries to give a motivation for why women should be subordinate.

[Dacke]

when we're on the topic of original sin, here's one of my fav Roman Catholic dogma twisters

- Jesus had to sacrifice himself in order to save humans from original sin
- Original sin was caused by the garden of eden event

But they also (sort of) accept the science of evolution and at least agree to the fact that humans evolved from other animals. So if they accept the science, they must also accept that:

- Adam & Eve never existed

So then the original sin event couldn't have happened. So what exactly did Jesus have to die for?

[s0]

dont most christian denominations basically pick and choose which parts of the bible are allegorical and which parts are literal?

[gimymblert]

Also catholic genesis is newer than the one who blame lilith for not wanted to be subordinate to man because she was created equal, that's literally demonizing equal right there.

Anyway the only good thing with the bible is to nag them with song of solomon, because queen sheba is a black woman and a queen, and that's the most loved woman in the bible

[rj]

dont most christian denominations basically pick and choose which parts of the bible are allegorical and which parts are literal?

yeah roman catholic dogma basically straight up states the OT is allegory and the NT is journaling iirc

edit: it also states the OT is basically worthless, although the catechism essentially doubles back on that via the concept of Tradition (capital t) which is a kinda forced loophole. jesus' intention via his words in the gospel were clearly to throw out the rules in the OT, but there are roundabout justifications for the bits the catholic church doesn't like (ye old gays, basically)

[rj]

fuck most american catholics in general would probably hate jesus if they met him

[gimymblert]

Jesus was a liberal anyway, give to the poor? CAPITALISM Mother F...er